Rox re CDMA2000 in IDCC’s 3G licenses
According to the licensing page, all of IDCC’s existing 3G licenses include CDMA2000 as a licensed standard. Also all of IDCC’s 3G licenses include IS-95 as a licensed standard, except for Hop-On. Therefore, the bolded comment from the following first quarter CC excerpt struck me as a little weird:
....“We previously announced that we have a 3G agreement with Infinium (ph). (inaudible) Nokia. Over the last 18 months we've also signed 3G agreements with Sharp, with Matsushita, which operates under the brand name of Panasonic, also with NEC, Japan Radio Corporation and then most recently with the smaller manufacturer Hoppon (ph) and also with Pantivia (ph), part of the broader agreement that Howard referred to earlier.
JOHN BUCHER: OK, great, that's all the wide-band CDMA agreements that you have to date?
GUY HICKS: Right, 3G licensees, correct.
JOHN BUCHER: OK, super. Did those agreements also include CDMA2000 1X? Is that within the scope of those agreements?
GUY HICKS: Depends on the particular agreement.”
It really didn’t depend on the particular agreement, because all of IDCC’s existing 3G licenses include CDMA2000. However, none of the currently paying 3G licensees are very big into CDMA2000, so it’s probably not a big deal to them. I believe CDMA2000 might be the problem area in IDCC’s 3G licensing efforts. Apparently IDCC firmly believes that they have essential IPR in CDMA2000 also, and will not issue a 3G license unless CDMA2000 is included therein IMO.
Do you think that CDMA2000 inclusion is the problem with IDCC’s 3G licensing efforts, or is there something else? Do you think that the indemnifier is just dealing with CDMA2000, or does it include WCDMA also as TeeCee reported that Janet told him? If this is true, what company do you think would try to provide indemnification against all CDMA standards, when IDCC clearly has a significant number of essential patents in WCDMA?
