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: Harvey Rosenkrantz who wrote (19281)	12/8/1998 9:50:00 AM
From: Jeff Vayda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Harvey: If I might hop in with a note on your questions. The ITU is structured to extract a series of standards from a committee. Give them credit for knowing in advance that they could not hope to settle differences between competing concerns. They are not empowered to make a 'ruling' if the interests of various parties are in conflict, the world has legal structures currently in place to manage those affairs. Ericson knows it can prevent Qualcomm's proposal from being incorporated simply by claiming they have IPR. They know they dont have to prove anything to the ITU. That is why the court date in Texas to clear up the IPR issue is scheduled for after the ITU is due to publish their recommendations. Jeff Vayda

To: Harvey Rosenkrantz who wrote (19281)	12/8/1998 10:04:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 152472

To me this sounds like an endorsement of QCOM's POV : "The global telecommunications industry is at a critical juncture and the ITU believes that global competition based on IMT-2000 standards will be a key driver for the world wireless market; incompatible standards, sometimes softly referred to as "technology differentiation", can however only mean bad news for consumers through higher costs and lack of interoperability across regions and around the world. And this is precisely what would happen if the various TDMA and CDMA RTT proposals submitted to the ITU are not harmonized into a single global standard for 3G. About 80% of today's digital mobile market is TDMA-based. A move to multiple 3G standards tied to today's 2G "footprints" could fragment the 3G marketplace. On the other hand, a global standard based on the best features of the various RTT proposals submitted to the ITU would mean a worldwide competitive platform for all players" Qualcomm's 3 Fairness Principles, which as far as I can tell are an efficient way of saying exactly what's in the paragraph above, are also included in the statement even though they were considered by some too "ridiculous" to even mention. It escapes me how ERICY could hold essential IPR for CDMA2000 and have allowed IS95 to get off the ground. There has been a lot of talk (Nortel and MOT) about 2 variants with roaming provided by dual mode handsets.Anyone have any idea whether this might be acceptable to Q or whether this is just more of the same couched in different language. I agree that some way should be found that utilizes as much existing equipment as possible. "The consensus within Task Group 8/1 where all major industry players are taking an active part - including QUALCOMM and Ericsson – has therefore been to select a radio interface for IMT-2000 capable of delivering the full range of 3G services and quality in a global roaming environment, that could also operate with 2G networks through dual or multi-mode sets albeit without all the added functionalities of IMT-2000. In other words, a migration path similar to that experienced when colour television was introduced" Gregg..Seems I was wrong about the deadline. Do you think that ERICY is not claiming rights to IS95cHDR because it's not mentioned specifically, or do you know this to be the case.. DMG