Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
olddog967 -- sounds to me like you've already answered your own question; and besides, why should anyone here want to undertake the responsibility of trying to tell you why you should invest in IDCC now?
my3sons87 -- yup -- and then there's the point that if IDCC submits a batch of its specific IPRs to 3G3P for certification as IDCC's "essential" IPRs, then IDCC is (at least implicitly) conceding that all of its other IPRs are not essential -- put that together with the risk 3G3P could incorrectly not recognize as being essential any essential IPRs that are submitted to it by IDCC, and one can easily see how deciding to go ahead and make the submission to 3G3P could well be nothing but a classic "lose/lose", both tactically and strategically, for IDCC
loophole73 --
perhaps you are the one missing the point, that point being IDCC's (imo correct and wise) reasoning behind the stance that IDCC is taking in general along such lines -- as reflected in the following from rmarchma's very well-done post yesterday re his conversation the day before with Janet:
"I asked if IDCC believes that we have essential patents for the CDMA 2000 infrastructure, as well as the handsets. Janet responded that we have system-type patents that apply to both the infrastructure and to the handsets. We discussed one of the questionnaire’s surprise in a recent CC when he learned that IDCC is claiming essential IPR for the CDMA 2000 standard, and his request for a possible IDCC “white paper” dealing with our IPR in this standard. Janet said she doubted that IDCC would do this, because any written material outside the actual patents might inadvertently narrow the scope of the patents by our official interpretations thereof, and could possibly be used against us. This is the main reason that IDCC will not disclose additional details regarding our specific patents." [emphasis added]
in re IDCC's essential IPRs in the 3G standards, it seems reasonable and likely to me that, in the spirit of 'we don't need no steenking badges', all IDCC needs/should need to show any given non-licensee in any given instance are copies of its relevant patent claim(s) and of the pertinent portion(s) of the involved standard(s), 3G3P be damned -- if IDCC sees net advantage in getting its IPRs certified through 3G3P and accordingly chooses to go that route, then that's fine with me; but I do not agree that (we know enough to say that) if IDCC does not do so, then they are in that respect definitely making a mistake -- as reflected in the highlighted comments above from Janet, going the 3G3P route is NOT without risk; in this respect, you have not even acknowledged the REAL risk that 3G3P could incorrectly fail to certify an essential IDCC IPR as being essential, let alone addressed the harm that could do to IDCC's licensing efforts or what further recourse (if any) IDCC might have in such an instance
jaykayjones --
within a given 3G standard? (which is how I stated my point)
I stand by my posts respectively
jaykayjones --
you just changed what you were saying -- I stand by what I said re what you originally said
also, it is at best far from clear that it can be the case that there can be two completely separate and independent sets of valid IPRs both covering one and the same point of functionality (whether essential or merely commercially important) within a given 3G standard
3GDollars --
an essential function, understood more broadly, may indeed have more than one essential component, or in my language 'point of essentiality', included in the IPRs for that essential function -- but that does not alter my point -- if IDCC has the essential IPRs for a specific component of an essential function, then nobody else can also have the essential IPRs for that same specific component of that essential function -- or put the other way, just because e.g. NOK may have the essential IPRs for some other component of an essential function does NOT mean that e.g. NOK can therefore use those essential IPRs of its own to offset against its obligation to pay IDCC for IDCC's essential IPRs for a different component of that essential function -- so yes, I'm sure
jaykayjones --
"Imagine that you are a real-world manufacturer, such as NOK or Ericsson, sitting opposite IDCC and negotiating IPR rates for 3G. It is highly likely that you already have a number of your own essential patents in 3G, (which will differ from NOK to ERICY to NEC). So, in reality, you only need a subset of what IDCC has to offer to round-out your IPR needs. That's why the buyers are bringing in their engineers, product development people, etc. (as Janet told Rmarchma)."
Your premise that I've bolded is false. There cannot be duplicate IPRs covering the same point of essentiality. Where IDCC holds the IPRs covering a point of essentiality, nobody else can hold their own IPRs for that point of essentiality to offset against IDCC's IPRs for that point of essentiality.
loophole73 -- fair enough; I'll email you (eom)
the buyback did not in any way increase shares available for options or RSUs
(COMTEX) B: CONF: IFX To Present At ITU Telecom Conference @ 10:30 ET
Ridgeland, MS, OCT 13, 2003 (EventX/Knobias.com via COMTEX) -- Company
representatives of Infineon Technologies AG ADS (NYSE: IFX) will be presenting
at the ITU Telecom World 2003 today. The Company's presentation is scheduled to
begin at 10:30 ET.
Expected Speaker(s):
Wilfried Brachschoss, VP, Marketing Access Products
Misc Releated Info:
** Original Confirmation
** Conference Information:
ITU Telecom World 2003
Organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN-specialized
agency for telecommunications, ITU TELECOM WORLD 2003 is a world-class showcase
for the very latest technological trends as well as a stimulating forum for
influential speakers from every market segment and every global region. It is
the only telecoms event where major public-private sector partnerships are
regularly forged and the only event that brings together top-level participants
from both the developed and the developing worlds.
Conference Dates: 10/12/2003-10/18/2003
Geneva Palexpo
Geneva, SWT
Phone: 41 22 730 61 61 Email: itutelecom@itu.int
http://www.itu.int/WORLD2003/
CONTACT: Knobias.com, LLC
601-978-3399
601-978-3675
info@knobias.com
www.knobias.com/cmtx
Copyright 2003 Knobias.com, LLC, All rights reserved.
-0-
*** end of story ***
(BSNS WIRE) InterDigital Demonstrates WCDMA Products and
Cross-Generational Solutions at ITU Telecom World 2003
High-Tech Writers / Business Editors
GENEVA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--IDCC--
Company to Showcase FDD and TDD Product Solutions and Unveil Smart
Antenna and Digital Radio Technology Offerings
InterDigital Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:IDCC), a leading
architect, designer and provider of wireless technology and product
platforms, is today demonstrating its air interface solutions for
standards compliant Wideband CDMA (WCDMA) and introducing its smart
antenna and digital radio technology offerings at ITU Telecom World
2003 in Geneva, Switzerland.
"InterDigital has made significant advancements in its WCDMA
productization," said Howard Goldberg, President and Chief Executive
Officer. "Wireless operators and equipment manufacturers continue to
seek ways to be competitive in the market, grow their customer base
and reduce costs. The solutions we are featuring today in Geneva
address these imperatives. Our complete, standards-based WCDMA
solution, including both FDD and TDD air interface protocols, offers
operators and equipment manufacturers a product pathway to market
differentiation and economic benefits based on different deployment
scenarios."
The Company is demonstrating its standards compliant Frequency
Division Duplex (FDD) multi-mode software protocol stack product for
Third Generation (3G) terminal devices along with its end-to-end Time
Division Duplex (TDD) system, which supports end-to-end Wideband TDD
(WTDD) and TD-SCDMA standards. FDD and TDD combined form a complete
WCDMA solution.
The WCDMA FDD multi-mode software protocol stack product for
terminal devices will demonstrate video conference calls, supporting
data rates up to 384 kbps. Co-developed by InterDigital and Comneon, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Infineon, the complete FDD solution is
comprised of a physical layer interface and layer 2/3 software, which
when bundled together is a cost-efficient, rapidly deployable product
for wireless device manufacturers. The commercially available solution
supports Infineon's 3G baseband processor and also is portable to
other baseband processors.
Utilizing 5 Mhz of unpaired spectrum owned by Swisscom Mobile, a
leading operator in Switzerland, the TDD system will demonstrate live,
over the air, full-screen streaming video calls at 2 Mbps while
operating point-to-point over a fully functioning radio network
controller (RNC), Node B and end-user terminal device (UE). The
demonstration also includes live, over the air 384 kbps video
conference calls operating from terminal to terminal and voice calls
with a Web browsing session.
In addition, InterDigital is showcasing its TD-SCDMA platform as
well as SmartRRM(SM), a complete suite of advanced radio resource
management algorithms and simulation tools that maximize TDD
performance.
The Company also is introducing its smart antenna and digital
radio solutions. Smart antenna, a steerable beam for mobile terminals,
is a low cost, easy to integrate solution that improves capacity,
coverage and data rates without the need and added cost associated
with updating infrastructure equipment. InterDigital's digital radio
solution is based upon a vertically integrated baseband and radio
frequency architecture that delivers lower cost, higher performance
and improved battery life as a result of reducing radio performance
requirements by migrating radio frequency functions to the baseband.
"This year we have achieved significant milestones in developing
WCDMA air interface solutions for the 3G wireless market and have
strengthened our product development initiatives for
generation-extending and cross-generational solutions," said Mark
Lemmo, Executive Vice President of Product Management and Business
Development. "The introduction of smart antenna and digital radio
solutions demonstrates our progress in broadening our advanced
wireless technology and product portfolio, and reflects our ongoing
commitment to provide wireless operators and equipment manufacturers
with an increasingly broad portfolio of innovative solutions that
enable them to reduce costs and develop competitive product offerings
to help them better serve their customers and maximize profitability."
Visit InterDigital at ITU Telecom World 2003 in Geneva at booth
2129 in Hall 2.
About InterDigital
InterDigital architects, designs and provides advanced wireless
technologies and products that drive voice and data communications.
The Company offers technology and product solutions for mainstream
wireless applications that deliver cost and time-to-market advantages
for its customers. InterDigital has a strong portfolio of patented
technologies covering 2G, 2.5G and 3G standards, which it licenses
worldwide. For more information, please visit InterDigital's web site:
www.interdigital.com.
This press release contains forward-looking statements as to the
Company's beliefs and expectations with respect to the performance of
its FDD and TDD demonstrations, the characteristics of its Smart
RRM(SM) products, smart antenna and digital radio solutions and its
commitment to broadening its portfolio of solutions. Forward-looking
statements are subject to risk and uncertainties. Actual outcomes
could differ materially from those expressed in any such
forward-looking statement due to a variety of factors including (i)
radio interference from adjacent demonstrations could cause errors,
reduced quality or loss of service in our demonstrations, (ii) the
development and commercialization of competitive technologies with
superior performance characteristics could reduce the expected
benefits of our product solutions, (iii) difficulties in development,
resources and changes in the market could impact the breadth of
product solutions.
InterDigital is a registered trademark and SmartRRM is a
servicemark of InterDigital Communications Corporation.
SOURCE: InterDigital Communications Corporation
CONTACT INFORMATION:
InterDigital Communications Corporation
Media Contact:
Dawn Goldstein, 610-878-7800
e-mail: dawn.goldstein@interdigital.com
or
Investor Contact:
Janet Point, 610-878-7800
e-mail: janet.point@interdigital.com
*** end of story ***
loophole73 --
YOU are the one who raised the issue you "prefer not to discuss" of "the Nok side of the arbitation", and YOU did so not in response to anyone's particular comment or question but instead solely on your own initiative, with your thus utterly gratuitous "The Nok matter is far more complicated than this board is willing to realize." comment by which you also slammed the rest of us (other than JimLur). Of course if others ask of you respond as you see fit, including by saying you don't want to discuss it if that's the case; but for THAT self-initiated comment/slam you deserved to be told to put up or shut up -- you don't want to discuss the issue, then fine, DON'T discuss it and DON'T raise it; raise the issue to use it as the pretense for a generalized slam that you don't want to have to defend, then expect to get called on the carpet for doing so -- it clearly was THAT behavior at which my 'put up or shut up' was absolutely properly directed -- pull the same stunt again, and I'll respond the same way again. (And btw, given that this somehow apparently isn't evident to you -- in particular in light of your self-serving stance/slam here, the rest of us [other than JimLur] couldn't care less that "I have spoken to Jim and he and I have no problems." -- well whoopdeedoo and good for you! -- as if that explains or is responsive to anything, or excuses your slam . . .)
Re "My response to you is that Samsung will not be ordered to pay any additional 2 and 2.5g royalties by an arbitration panel until Nok is ordered to pay or settles." -- it may indeed happen that way in time, but even if it does it will NOT be for the reasons you have stated -- it will simply be because the NOK process, which got started first, ends up getting resolved first. So, just for the record, you still haven't actually responded to what I've said about Samsung other than to say you have your opinion and I have mine (which, of course, as such, is fine). If Samsung is resolved first, or if NOK is resolved first and it becomes known that Samsung (whether resolved at that time or later) was NOT bound by that NOK resolution (including without limitation by virtue of the Samsung resolution NOT being on terms apparently similar to those of the NOK resolution), then I will have been independently proven correct; if NOK is resolved first AND it becomes known Samsung WAS actually bound by that NOK resolution, then you will have been independently proven correct; and if NOK is resolved first and Samsung is resolved (then or later) on apparently similar terms but it never becomes known whether Samsung was actually BOUND by the NOK resolution, then neither of us will have been independently proven correct.
loophole73 --
geesh what a lame post (not to mention haughty and arrogant and . . .) -- AS IF you have some exclusive insight that what NOK is up to is just so "far more complicated than this board is willing to realize", and AS IF that insight is just so deep (and impliedly dark) and the rest of us (other than JimLur) are just so dense and/or not willing to deal with reality that "I do not believe that it serves any purpose for me to lay out where Nok is heading with its tactics" -- yah, right
I say put up or shut up -- all this latest post of yours tells me is that your thinking re NOK (and Samsung) must continue to be as confused as before, and that you must be unwilling to (re-)post that thinking here now for fear of seeing it get shot full of holes yet again (which reminds me -- you never did respond to my earlier posts to you re NOK and Samsung -- why not? I took the time to make a thorough, orderly and respectful presentation of my arguments and conclusions, including my points of disagreement with what you had posted; it should have been easy enough for you to take my thinking apart if and as you disagreed -- instead, all I/we get from you is this . . .)
(if you don't like this blunt retort to the impudent insult you've just hurled at the rest of us [other than JimLur], well, tough -- you were literally begging for it with this one -- you should know better than to expect to be treated with respect, let alone deference, when you show this sort of ill-willed and full-of-yourself disrespect for others)
ziploc_1 -- I think you are assuming your conclusion, that the NOK motion to unseal will in fact materially delay the arbitration -- I submit that that has yet to be seen -- could it happen? sure -- but we do not yet know that it has, or that it will . . .
olddog967 -- I expect that IR just will not comment at all on the arbitration, not even on the simplest and most seemingly innocent detail of its status (and properly so imo -- categorical ICC rules regarding the thoroughgoing confidentiality of the arbitration, as well as Reg FD considerations)
thanks for posting excerpts from, and the link for, the ICC rules governing the arbitration(s)
sjratty -- the statement by the IDCC attorney was correct -- the district court has no power to force the arbitrators to consider any of those docs -- all the district court can do is unseal them; and even if it does, it is still entirely up to arbitrators whether or not any of those docs are to taken into account in the arbitration
OT: Dishfan -- nah, just a stubborn old fart who thinks he's got a pretty good idea of what he's doing here . . . (thanks for the thought, though -- lol)
OT: teecee -- and of course you meant that in a good way, right -- ?? (lol)
OT: TFWG --
"Say, we are close to the high of the day. I wonder who is reading IH!"
that was just yours truly pulling another 25k out of the float (raised my limit to 16.50 at 3:07, and to 16.75 at 3:21 -- never been all that patient once I've decided to make a move, and in particular given both the low volume at the lower prices and what was showing on Level II, felt I needed to do so to get the shares today; and not that the Geneva show will necessarily have any immediate impact, but I did specifically want to get the shares today, before the Geneva show actually opens) (funny that my volume showed up as 'Institutional' on I-Watch, though I guess that makes sense since I did execute through the UBS block-trading desk)
(never mind -- meant to be a pm)
lastchoice -- you haven't answered my question -- I've already said what I think
lastchoice -- and what do you think we'd get?
WayHaw -- we'll see (note the emphasis on GSM, GPRS and EDGE protocol stack work -- at least on its face, does not appear to undercut IDCC's status as their working partner in re FDD protocol stack, though some may have hoped IDCC's involvement could have extended to GSM/GPRS/EDGE protocol stack work as well)
(BSNS WIRE) Infineon Takes on 145 Software Engineers for Mobile Platforms
from Siemens - Expansion of Solutions Business Gathers Momentum
High-Tech Writers / Business Editors
MUNICH, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)--IFX IFX.FK--
Infineon Technologies (FSE/NYSE: IFX) will take on 145
software developers from Siemens Information and Communication Mobile
(Siemens mobile) and thereby significantly strengthen its solutions
expertise in the mobile communications sector. This move has now been
agreed by Infineon and Siemens mobile. The highly specialized
engineers will mainly contribute know-how in hardware-level software
for mobile phone platforms and mobile phone operating systems.
Infineon, currently the fourth-largest provider of semiconductors for
mobile platform applications, will integrate the new employees into
its 100 percent subsidiary Comneon GmbH & Co. OHG, which operates as
an independent software development center within its Secure Mobile
Solutions group. The new intake will reinforce the existing
development team that is already working for Siemens and other
customers.
Subject to approval by the German anti-trust authority, Infineon
is with this step dramatically boosting its expertise in the mobile
communications sector. Currently the company has some 200 employees
working on the development of software for next-generation mobile
phones as well as on the integration of advanced mobile operating
systems. The developers newly acquired from Siemens mobile are
specialized in hardware-level software solutions for of mobile phone
components (called "protocol stacks") for current and future Siemens
mobile phones for GSM, GPRS and EDGE.
"We look forward to welcoming the 145 software developers from
Siemens, who will add important expertise to complement our existing
know-how in the mobile sector," said Dr. Erk Thorsten Heyen, CEO of
the Secure Mobile Solutions Group (SMS) at Infineon. "This takes us
another huge step forward in our ambition to progress from a pure
semiconductor manufacturer into a system partner for complete mobile
platform solutions."
Ian Moyes, head of the Mobile Phones division at Siemens mobile.
"By bringing together the development strands dealing specifically
with hardware-level issues such as protocol stacks we will be able to
deploy resources more flexibly and more effectively. This will enable
us to shorten development cycles for mobile phones still further."
About Comneon
Founded in 1990, Comneon GmbH & Co. OHG, Nuernberg/Germany, is a
100 percent subsidiary of Infineon Technologies AG. The company is
developing software for next-generation mobile phones including the
integration of operating systems for mobile platforms. (Symbian OS).
At locations in Nuernberg/Germany, Munich/Germany and Linz/Austria,
Comneon employs approximately 200 software engineers.
About Infineon
Infineon Technologies AG, Munich, Germany, offers semiconductor
and system solutions for the automotive and industrial sectors, for
applications in the wired communications markets, secure mobile
solutions as well as memory products. With a global presence, Infineon
operates in the US from San Jose, CA, in the Asia-Pacific region from
Singapore and in Japan from Tokyo. In the fiscal year 2002 (ending
September), the company achieved sales of Euro 5.21 billion with about
30,400 employees worldwide. Infineon is listed on the DAX index of the
Frankfurt Stock Exchange and on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker
symbol: IFX). Further information is available at www.infineon.com.
This news release is available online at
http://www.infineon.com/news
SOURCE: Infineon Technologies
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Infineon Technologies
Corporate Communications
Worldwide Headquarters
Ralph Heinrich
Phone / Fax: +49 89 234 22404 / 28482
ralph.heinrich@infineon.com
or
U.S.A.
Christoph Liedtke
Phone / Fax: +1 408 501 6790 / 2424
christoph.liedtke@infineon.com
or
Asia
Kaye Lim
Phone / Fax: +65 6840 0689 / 0073
kaye.lim@infineon.com
or
Japan
Hirotaka Shiroguchi
Phone / Fax: +81 3 5449 6795 / 6401
hirotaka.shiroguchi@infineon.com
or
Investor Relations
EU/APAC +49 89 234 26655
USA/CAN +1 408 501 6800
investor.relations@infineon.com
*** end of story ***
[my emphasis added]
OT: easymoney101 -- yup! LOL!!!
spree99 -- no, I don't -- I have been told that "Blue Horseshoe loves Interdigital" indicates a belief there will be, hence my pm
bush hog -- thx, I know -- just couldn't let that one pass without comment
Learning2vest -- AS IF that would or could be a good thing (any bid now would almost certainly be below $25/sh, and probably closer to $20/sh; and the takeover would be the end of the major upside potential we have with our investments in IDCC -- any cash deal would not only of course end said upside potential, but would also trigger taxable gains for those of us who'd have gains at the takeout price; and in particular considering the brutally tough business IFX is in and its recent operating results, even a stock deal would leave us with an investment that, even with IDCC folded into IFX, could not possibly have the upside potential a continuingly independent IDCC has . . .)
(InternetWire) Unwired Australia and Navini Networks to "Unwire" The Land Down Under
Companies to Provide First Wide-Area Wireless Broadband in Australia
and First Urban Build-Out In Asia/Pacific Region
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA AND RICHARDSON, TX -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 10/07/03 --
Unwired Australia Pty Ltd ("Unwired"), the only national 3.4 - 3.5GHz
spectrum license holder in Australia, has announced their plans for
metro-area deployments of a non-line-of-sight, wide-area wireless
broadband network throughout Australia using equipment from Navini
Networks, Inc. Once operational, this system will be the first
non-line-of-sight wide-area wireless broadband system in Australia.
Sydney will be the first city for Unwired's build-out and one of the
first cities in the Asia Pacific region to have a complete metro-area
wide-area wireless broadband network.
Industry research shows the Australian market at an inflection point
in broadband growth, with customers expected to grow to 1.4 million by
2005 and 3 million by the end of the decade. The revenue generated
from this broadband access is growing significantly and expected to
reach $1 billion by 2005.
In addition to expected strong industry growth, Unwired also
identified that unfulfilled demand from residents and small businesses
not reached by current DSL providers presents a substantial
opportunity. A study by London Economics last year revealed that 41
percent of Australian households do not have access to DSL due to the
limitation of the existing copper-wire infrastructure. The study
also reported that even by 2005, DSL will not reach 30 percent of the
country's households.
Having successfully completed testing of its trial network in the
Sydney suburb of Balmain, the company said deployment of the
Sydney-wide network will begin in the 4th quarter of this year with
the goal of having 70 sites operational by the end of the first
quarter 2004. When the Sydney network is complete, Unwired plans to
roll out other large metropolitan areas, including Brisbane,
Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and major regional centers.
"Unwired is now uniquely positioned to offer an accessible broadband
service to the residential and small business market of Australia,
complementing our strategic 3.4GHz national spectrum," stated Peter
Shore, Chairman of Unwired. "Navini's superior non-line-of-sight
technology will allow us to quickly deploy a solid network, and to be
able to offer broadband services with the added benefit of untethered
access anywhere in the service area."
"Unwired is set to provide a much-needed service for Australians,
providing a broadband alternative based on the most advanced wireless
broadband technology available," observed Alastair Westgarth,
president and chief executive officer of Navini Networks. "The fact
that Unwired is the first company in Australia to offer a wireless
WAN solution is a testament to the company's vision for Australia's
broadband landscape."
About Unwired Australia Pty Ltd
Established in 2000, Unwired is an independent telecommunications
company that is building a national Broadband Wireless Access (BWA)
network to meet the needs of Australia's residential, SOHO and SME
internet users.
Backed by a combination of Australian private investors and US
institutional investors including Credit Suisse First Boston, The
Invus Group and Bruckmann Rosser Sherill, Unwired boasts an
experienced executive team committed to driving the company forward
in a spirit of technical excellence and quality service.
About Navini Networks
Headquartered in Richardson, Texas, Navini Networks offers patented
wide-area wireless broadband technology delivering multi-megabit
speeds to customers up to 8 miles from the base station. Navini
provides nomadic, zero-install(TM), non-line-of-sight infrastructure
to allow for anytime, anywhere Web access. Navini Networks'
Ripwave(TM) products consist of a desktop modem or PCMCIA card, base
station, and element management system (EMS) and operate in various
licensed and unlicensed frequencies. Navini's solution results in a
price/performance combination that is superior to other broadband
offerings - wired or wireless - in the marketplace. Navini's
investors include Austin Ventures, Granite Ventures, Sequoia Capital,
Sternhill Partners, as well as Alcatel, Intel and Sanmina. For more
information, please visit www.navini.com.
Media and analysts, for more information:
Renee Law
Public Relations for Unwired Australia
Firm Communications
Tel. (02) 9232 0226
M: 0409 550 389
reneelaw@firmcomms.com.au
Cherie Gary
Public Relations for Navini Networks
Tel. (214) 902-1999 (-6 hours GMT)
cgary@navini.com
Sarah Meche
Public Relations for Navini Networks
Tel. (972) 312-1577 (-6hours GMT)
sarah@garypartners.com
For general information on Navini
email sales@navini.com
For information on Unwired
email email@unwiredaustralia.com.au
*** end of story ***
Data_Rox -- I understand that CDMA2000 operates in those multiple modes; so QCOM's chip-level licensing for CDMA2000 is really just a holdover from 2G chip-level licensing, as v. a breakout into 3G chip-level licensing as such? (and I agree, let's not worry too much right now re the NEC example you provided [thanks; thought I remembered something like that] -- who knows whether that part of that license is specifically/separately/independently royalty-bearing, and if so under what circumstances)
fwiw -- even though, from a purely legal standpoint, a holder of IPRs does have the right to insist that any product, including chips, made using its IPRs be made and sold only pursuant to a license of those IPRs, I do agree that in wireless it seems sensible enough, at least in general, for actual licensing to be focused on/limited to royalties on end-products sold -- guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all does finally play out in 3G
re NOK and any attempts it may make to offset IDCC's claims for end-product royalty rates with claims for chip-level licensing of NOK's GSM/GPRS/EDGE IPRs relative to any chip activities of IDCC -- all I can say is that I hope and trust IDCC will (at least in general; perhaps some room to play if NOK wants to commit to buying Coneheads-style mass quantities of IDCC-sourced chips) tell NOK, however politely, to go get stuffed in any such attempt to get IDCC to reduce its end-product royalty rates, as IDCC will be involved in chips that include GSM/GPRS/EDGE functionalities only via chip partners that either already have [access to] any needed chip-level licenses for NOK's GSM/GPRS/EDGE IPRs, or (at the least) already have been producing chips with such functionalities without any assertion by NOK of any need for such chip-level licenses from NOK (if indeed there are any major chip manufacturers that have been making such chips that don't already have [access to] such chip-level licenses from NOK)
Data_Rox -- is there any particular reason that the chip-level licensing sword won't or can't be brought into play in 3G? (and doesn't QCOM already insist on chip-level licensing in CDMA2000? and have they done any chip-level W-CDMA licensing to date?) -- and re IP Wireless, wouldn't an IDCC license presumably be couched in terms of royalties on WTDD standards-compliant products (modems, basestations, whatever) sold by IP Wireless, or do you see that license as chip-level (instead or also)?
appreciate your input; don't mean to be like the kid that keeps asking 'why?', but it's not always easy to make sense of licensing questions such as these . . . just hard for me to get around the idea that if (in 3G) IDCC is essentially relegated to focusing only on royalties on end-products sold, then (in 3G) so should everybody else be so relegated (or have you indeed already said that that is how you see things going in 3G? -- but again, if you have, hasn't QCOM already crossed that line, at least in re CDMA2000?)
Data_Rox -- OK, understand re multi-mode; thanks
but not sure I understand your answer "Nope. IDCC doesn't have any leverage at the GSM or UMTS chip making level." to my question "are you acknowledging that I was correct that you now feel nobody is entitled to make any chip to any of the 3G standards without first having an appropriate license for IDCC's related 3G IPRs?" (where in saying 'make' I also meant 'and sell', of course) -- doesn't that sword (needing licenses for making and selling chips), if indeed it is in play, have to cut both ways? -- how can anybody require IDCC to be licensed for their IPRs in order to make/sell a chip, if IDCC cannot require anybody to be licensed for IDCC's IPRs in order to make/sell a chip?
hmmm -- I thought TD-SCDMA, like W-CDMA, was a complete break from TDMA-based GSM; would NOK's GSM IPRs be of any actual relevance to an IDCC TD-SCDMA chip (honest question)? (leaving aside the point of any IPRs licensed by, and therefore available via, whatever chip-making partner IDCC might be working with in such a circumstance) -- and in any event, are you acknowledging that I was correct that you now feel nobody is entitled to make any chip to any of the 3G standards without first having an appropriate license for IDCC's related 3G IPRs?
Data_Rox -- "they'll" meaning 'NOK will', as implied by your grammar?
Data_Rox -- nice to see that you are now taking the position that nobody has the right to produce any chip to any of the 3G standards without first having licensed IDCC's related 3G IPRs for that purpose (limiting this point to just the 3G standards for the moment) -- very interesting indeed . . .
texb -- actually, I didn't ask that -- the answers came from the directors; the consultants made up the questions -- and the questions themselves, however predictable and self-serving the answers given by the directors may have been, seemed sensible enough to me -- plus I'm not necessarily as inclined as you appear to be to completely discount the directors' answers as nothing but self-serving bs having no substantive value whatsoever; maybe the directors who responded do have some actual insight into the matters addressed by the questions, and maybe they do also do some integrity . . . -- I hear what you're saying, and indeed myself take the survey with an obviously-appropriate (and good-sized) grain of salt; but as noted I don't think it makes sense to just completely dismiss it the way you do, either (wouldn't have bothered posting it if I had that view of it)
texb -- hadn't specifically remembered that they had consulted for IDCC, thx -- I only posted the article about the survey for whatever interest any may have had in it -- your opinion is noted -- I find it difficult to believe they would lie about the responses they got from the directors they surveyed; if you've got a beef with the results of the survey, seems to me that beef is with the directors who responded to the survey, not the outfit that conducted it
Corp_Buyer -- understood -- of course, the (method for the) reported valuation of the options, as with any (method for the) valuation of options, necessarily makes (or is based upon) certain assumptions -- and I think I've made my view re HC's compensation in recent years clear -- again, understood
rmarchma -- as I said, really not interested in provoking any new discussions right now -- generally acknowledge what you are saying, though the cash component paid by IDCC apparently is quite low, and you are necessarily making some assumptions, assumptions all longs of course hope are correct(!), re the value of the options; also, I think my view in particular re HC's compensation in recent years should be well known by now -- in any event, there are of course also other findings of the survey upon which one could focus . . .