Replies to post #38027 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mack12]

mschere...

the fact that by waiting to license 3G..IDCC will still receive royalties from any future licensee for their past 3G sales..

Given IDCC's history in collecting the full amount of what's owed to them...I find it amazing that you could state the above.

[GE_Jim]

Interesting post, mschere

Re: more IDCC's Fundamental 3G patents are being approved daily

Question, what percent off all 3G sales is IDCC collecting on with all the patents?

If 1 dollar would be 100 percent, IDCC is getting what revenue of all current 3g sales. 2cents? Less than? Your answer is awaited. And then please follow up with WHY they're not getting paid, I mean after all the patents are being used aren't they? WHY are the others in this getting paid and IDCC is not on ALL sales.

RE: IDCC will still receive royalties from any future licensee for there past 3G sales

Yeah. . . you know shouldn't we worry about collecting for 2 g first before you have everybody once again paying IDCC for 3 G.

60mil phone sales projected for sales of 3g by 2006. Roughly 300mil are projected for 2g now. We are supposed to get more for 2g than 3g per phone. Perhaps 2g should be looked at first instead of worrying about 1/5 the sales of a product we don't have licensed yet that is 3 years away.

Qual is, and will be far bigger than IDCC could hope to get. One might consider sticking with a like for like. Their management is also far better and for that reason Qcom IS getting paid where as IDCC is not. Take a look at both companies pre 94. One made it, one didn't.

[3GDollars]

mschere,

Qualcomm..IMO: has taken their 100 CDMA licensees..and upgraded them to 3G early on..with the provision that the licensee will pay top royalty dollars (4%-5%) and are guaranteed to recieve a complete end to end IP package for all 3G standards..and now find they will not have the ability to deliver..without x-licensing with IDCC and sharing some of their early high rates..


If that a fact or just your speculation. Does this has to do with Qualcomm litigation with TI - the suit filed on friday?

Never mind, notice your IMO above. However, I have always wonder how QCOM can promise GSM1X w/o license fr IDCC. For CDMA2000-1X, even though IDCC claim essential IPR, but IMO, those essential IPR has been x-license away to QCOM in 1995. For the future version of CDMA2000 where smart antenna technology is going to be used, then I think/hope QCOM needs IDCC IPR. Sure hope IDCC didn't license away the smart antenna for CDMA application IPRs that were file in 1993 too. Keeping my finger crossed.

[vtem]

MSCHERE,

From all one can gleam from UTSI's hugh sales to China their PAS product which is based on Japan's PHS architect, already past a few hundreds of million why are we still not able to get them to sign a license with us, especially their almost exclusively purchase of components from Sharp. Do you think there might be some other kind of intrepations there?

UTSI is late to the party, their technology application shouldn't be anything of their own, rather than like the big boys who had parts of the sum. UTSI should be licensing quickly, where is the beef?? Can I have the benefit of your thinking?

Should UTSI be willing to license, where is the holdup now? All Japanese firms acknowlegded our contributions into this standard and paid? And why are we not hearing a thing from KoP? A new license to UTSI will give a big boost to confidence now!

Regards,