Replies to post #30420 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[infinite_q]

jmspaesq, I don't know how long you have been following the IDCC boards, but if you go back and read all of Data's posts on RB and here you will find that he has NEVER acknowledged that any specific IDCC patent is essential to WCDMA. On the contrary, he has gone out of his way to deny any claims that a specific patent is applicable to WCDMA. This is in stark contrast to his blind faith in Irwin Jacob's claims that QCOM owns the fundamental patents to all forms of CDMA - including 3G.

His response to my initial post was predictable.

I find it amazing that even though IDCC has made over 600 contributions to the 3GPP standards he can't identify a single IDCC patent that applies to those standards. Yet he is a self-proclaimed IDCC long who is in it for 3G.

Maybe he will share his vast technical knowledge with us all and explain why he is so long on this company if he doesn't believe they have an IPR position in 3G.

[witchhollow]

I admire your ability to see the glass as half full with regard to your latest posts to BSW and IQ, however, I'll join with those two in declaring that the glass is half empty.

Ken

[blueskywaves]

IQ calls it an agenda, I call it a conceptual box, but we're really talking about the same blind elephant.<g>

It's fair to challenge any well known QCOM fan like Rox who tries to make assertions about the technology or the standards process precisely because they have previously demonstrated patterns of inside the box thinking that have often lead to dead-end discussions in the past.

For example, Rox's statement that IDCC owns a very small part of the air interface is flimsy, unsupported and flies in the face of IDCC's claim in its sworn filings that more than 600 out of their 1,000+ contributions to the 3G standard (5 modes) have been accepted. Clearly, not even IDCC is claiming 100% of the standards, right? But they're not conceding that they have only a very small part either.

You are also right that there are a lot of unknowables in the standards process. Each vendor can still go in so many different technical directions even after the standard is set in stone. That's why I'm skeptical about Rox's approach and its predictable conclusions. How can anybody look at the technical specs without relating it to the multi-million dollar business decisions that have already been made about IDCC's CDMA patent portfolio? Keep in mind that IDCC's CDMA patents are built on the very solid foundations of the Schilling patents and they continue to invest heavily in it so that it can keep pace with Moore's Law.

Below is another good example of this type of inside the box thinking. This is a post by a certain BRational who was then considering a paired trade -- going long QCOM while going short IDCC at the same time -- when IDCC was below $20 and QCOM was near $40. Ouch!

I conclude that either IDCC has gotten ahead of itself and of (its best case) “comparables”, or that QCOM is way below where it should be, or both. My conclusion would be that this seems like a good time to sell one and buy the other—there is even a nice gap between 14 and 17 in IDCC’s recent climb.

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=18912810

IDCC is a turn-around story. QCOM is a growth and established success story: they have a top notch RF team, they have taken ownership stakes in major internet companies, they have an established PC software arm, an industry leading chip unit, and so much more. IDCC is nothing like QCOM. Comparing the two does nothing to evaluate the recent stock surge of IDCC. Although it does provide for some good message board fodder

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg_multireplies.gsp?msgid=18912810

History has yet to record an answer.<g>