InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 762
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/06/2003

Re: Corp_Buyer post# 17112

Wednesday, 04/02/2003 12:45:59 PM

Wednesday, April 02, 2003 12:45:59 PM

Post# of 433021
Corp, it's important to to think logically here:

"IDCC's statements about essential patents in the 10k are just too strong (plus our new patents in the US and Europe). We have the goods, there is no doubt about that, especially in 3G."

Time and time again IDCC boosters bring up the "essential patents" language. What you must also consider is that it is entirely possible to have essential patents that have already been licensed away and paid for. That's what this whole indemnity thing is all about. It sounds like Qualcomm is claiming they have already paid for the patents that IDCC is claiming are essential. And yes, I know that IDCC also claims they believe they have additional essential patents but this claim is not made as often or as strongly as the primary claim that they have essential patents. In my opinion, those are already licensed by Qualcomm and sub-licensed to all of Qualcomm's licensees. And it sounds like Qualcomm is willing to fight to prove it.

So enough repeating that IDCC has "essential patents" in all 3G standards, the question is "Can they collect on them?"

To me it looks like IDCC is finally being paid off (for 2G) and shut out of 3G once and for all. And you can bet the few 3G licensees they currently have will not continue to pay if no one else is. Any guesses how much IDCC will be worth if this is what we are seeing?

Once



The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.

~ ~ ~ Josh Billings

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent IDCC News