spider69,
I think all of us have put too much emphasis on that "engine & transmission" comment. I believe that comment which was 3 or closer to 4 years ago may not apply today. I believe much has evolved both technologically and via the standards that might not support that comment at this moment.
The comment was from the January 10, 2000 interview on CNBC and refers specifically to the air interface patents. To say the engine and transmission comment does not apply today is akin to saying IDCC no longer holds essential 3G air interface patents.
From the interview:
BILL GRIFFETH: Now I have the last question.(OFF-MIKE) Many people given the impression that IDC has the patents that could make it the next Qualcomm, in spite of the fact that the patents that you have do not cover the lucrative part of CDMA technology. Can you justify the current valuation of your stock with respect to the revenues that you expect to earn from the royalties that you do have patents on?
HOWARD GOLDBERG: I do not understand that reference to the lucrative part of CDMA technology. Our patents are concerned with the air interface.
BILL GRIFFETH: The patents on the technology are all equal in terms of the potential revenues? Aren`t some potentially more lucrative than others?
HOWARD GOLDBERG: I would argue if you try to make a weighted evaluation, that the air interface is one of the most lucrative aspects of the whole system, it is the engine and the transmission driving the system.
I am confident that if IDCC was asked today if they still hold essential 3G air interface patents that the answer would be a resounding YES.
Cheers.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
