Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (16960)	10/22/1998 4:17:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

MQurice, "Maybe they have managed to hook the magic words 'cdma' 'soft handoff' 'power control' 'near far problem' into their TDMA claims. That wouldn't be hard, and could fool some people on a jury [if that's how these things are handled] into thinking that it does sorta sound the same as what QUALCOMM is doing." Yes, this is one of the things I'm concerned about. Who's to say the rightful owner of the patents will win the court case. Even if Q is the rightful owner, ERICY must believe it has more than a snowballs chance in hell of prevailing. I don't think they would be so foolish as to continue with this game if things were going against them. Also, as was said on the ERICY thread, this process is more important and costly to QCOM. Q's entire business is related to these IPR's, ERICY sells all sorts of Telecom infrastructure. The costs for both co's must be similar and are therefore more expensive to Q on a percentage basis. What if ERICY really does hold vital IPRs and proves it, and what if they don't and win anyway? I suppose at that point Q would have to capitulate on convergence. They're already gloating about costly awards over on the ERICY thread.. I still find it unbelievable that the two companies could issue such divergent press releases. We can be certain this crap is going pressure Q managment and shareholders until it's settled. DaveMG

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (16960)	10/22/1998 4:54:00 PM
From: bananawind	Respond to of 152472

Maurice, re They are referring to a single channel swap - so that if an adjacent cellsite has the same channel free, the cellphone can use that one. I suppose that gives a smoother handover, with less snap crackle and pop, dead time and dropped calls. The mechanism, which is what a patent describes, is completely different for cdmaOne. All warm fuzzies, across the whole bandwidth. No nasty channel switching and dead time with snap crackle pop followed by a dropped call. Software cunningly measures a few decibels then the handset is smoothly sailing in the new zone, with a friendly wave goodbye from Babe. Exactly as you describe. Here's a reference for others that want to sort out Ericy's bull poo-poo [as Gregg would call it]. ee.mtu.edu Soft Handoff Mentioned previously were methods of current cellular technology that uses the "hard handoff" method when mobiles are changing cells. Because each mobile is on a limited channel within a specific cell, the transmitting base station must try to allocate a new channel to a new mobile. The problem arises when the mobile is active and also changing cells. At the very least, the person will here some static or a glitch of some sort because the transmission had to be placed on a new carrier wave. This is relatively acceptable, except in cases when there are no more channels available to any mobile. In this case the call is just dropped. Since the bandwidth in CDMA schemes is common to all users, channel allocation is not required. As shown in the animation, the current cell of the mobile is responsible for all transmissions. As the mobile nears the boundary of a neighboring cell, it receives transmissions from both cells. The mobile will receive some message from one cell, and some from the other until it has moved into one or the other cells. This is known as a "soft handoff" because the user never experiences any glitch and certainly never a dropped call.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (16960)	10/23/1998 6:44:00 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice: They are going for broke. The June 1989 patent is pretty easy to read. Like analogue systems for years before, you have to hand the call off to another station. So they don't get to patent the concept of shifting the transaction from one base station to another. They are claiming a patent on a method. One single method. Not the concept of checking signal strengths etc and swapping to the stronger one. Remember when I was talking about many different methods of doing the same thing? dave

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (16960)	10/23/1998 3:18:00 PM
From: Bon Scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

How is all this going to only effect QCOM? Could Ericy force only QCOM to license for the rights to use the patents? Don't any of the other infrastructure mfg. (LU, MOT, NT...etc.) use these same sorts of things in their products? Have any of them licensed with Ericy regarding these patents? I would think that they have a risk as well in all this patent debate between QCOM & Ericy. Wouldn't it be unfair business practice (which, of course, Ericy would never do) for Ericy to only go after QCOM regarding these patents?