Replies to post #8611 on Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[richbloem]

Eric, I agree with your answer to Immelman. And, would add this point in terms of why Qualcomm doesn't pay royalties to Interdigital. IDCC (Interdigital) doesn't have anything that Qualcomm needs at this point. It is still unproven whether or not IDCC has essential blocking patents for WCDMA. Actually, to be fair, it is unproven whether anybody has blocking patents for WCDMA as no worlds body has ever actually certified any as such. IDCC may have some IPR in TDD that Q was unable to get from other cross-licenses and if Q needs that IPR to produce a TD-SCDMA chip or a TDD version of WCDMA then, Q will do what it needs to do.

I also agree with you that Interdigital or any other company that effects this business, is our business and is not off topic.

[mschere]

Question..Could you explain in simple terms two points.?.

1.Does a semiconductor producer fab or not, require a license to embed IP software of others....as long as the final OEM pays the IP owner under a license?

2. Why would IDCC who does not produce chips ...care if Qualcomm sellls boatloads of IDCC embedded IP..provided they collect from the final user?

Any input would be most appreciated..TIA


It is my considered opinion that InterDigital is a potential obstacle that Qualcomm will have to deal with in the future.

InterDigital has apparently accumulated significant IP in 3GSM UMTS UTRA TDD (more substantial probably than in 3GSM UMTS UTRA FDD DS). At such time (and if) Qualcomm decides to add TDD HCR or TDD LCR to their chipset roadmap, they will almost unquestionably be dealing with InterDigital across a negotiating table, or in a courtroom.

I'll state one final opinion, and that is that anything that is happening in the world of G3G mobile wireless is, and should be, of interest to Qualcomm investors. One of the great attributes of this board is that discussion is not limited to Qualcomm, and instead, topics, companies, and issues, that affect Qualcomm are openly discussed.

[ihavenoidea1]

Eric:
Agreed. IDCC's success or failures have impact on Q, probably even more so than Nokia's and that certainly is and has been fair game on this board. Your penchent for #'s is respected, but irrelevent in this case. IDCC is perceived by most in the investment community as its value added being legal support for their IPR,(we all have to make a living) rather than value added for "engineering" intellectual property. I frankly don't judge that as good or bad. But as an investor in Q, i have just as much respect for the legal side as the engineering side. Whether the engineers like it or not, the Q wouldn't be where it is today without excellence in both. And IDCC wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today without legal excellence. Let's not dun them for that. (i)

[sfx2000]

Eric - excellent post...

InterDigital Fact (and Opinion)

HummerBob,

I was under the impression that IDCC was a skeleton company with few engineers and lots of lawyers...maybe only 55 employees or so.

As of March 1, 2004, InterDigital employed 311 full-time individuals consisting of approximately 232 engineering and product development personnel, 12 patent administration and licensing personnel and 67 other personnel. That fact is per their latest SEC filing.

Their engineers appear to me to be very highly regarded in the wireless industry. That is an opininion I've formed by talking personally with wireless professionals I respect.

Personal feelings aside with regards to the debates I've had in the past with certain IDCC message board members, IDCC does have some good folks over there...

I am not an investor in IDCC (as several of this board's finest contributor's are) and I am nowhere near as knowledgeable about them as many of the seasoned folks here. However, and As for MWood's (Immelman's) question:

Investor - no, trader - yes, I can say that...

Wouldn't it be Qualcomm with a lack of integrity since they are not sharing any of the money with IDCC?

My answer would be that Qualcomm is not in the business of "sharing" money with anyone unless they have to. They are not a charity. IDCC will need to either negotiate with, or litigate against, Qualcomm (again), if they feel that they have IP that Qualcomm needs to execute a business plan, and conversely InterDigital may need Qualcomm IP to execute their own evolving business plans.

Bingo, Qualcomm is a commercial enterprise, and is not in the business of giving things away. That being said, Qualcomm and Interdigital do have agreements which allow each other to use their IP as needed to commercially deploy their technologies.

It's been said that what was exchanged was all that was needed... I suspect that they do meet from time to time to ensure that all is still ok...

It has been pointed out here that IHub hosts an excellent IDCC board hosted by Jim Lurgio. It is certainly the best forum on IHub, or on the planet to discuss InterDigital the company, and IDCC the stock.

Jim's a class act, and one of the best proponents of IDCC within the messageboard community...

That said, I do not agree that InterDigital is as some have stated, Off Topic, on this board. I defer to our hosts Data Rox's and Rich Bloem's judgment on that.

It is my considered opinion that InterDigital is a potential obstacle that Qualcomm will have to deal with in the future.

Interdigital has better things to do that pick fights with Qualcomm. That issue was resolved years ago with the IS95 agreement. It was a win-win for both parties...

InterDigital has apparently accumulated significant IP in 3GSM UMTS UTRA TDD (more substantial probably than in 3GSM UMTS UTRA FDD DS). At such time (and if) Qualcomm decides to add TDD HCR or TDD LCR to their chipset roadmap, they will almost unquestionably be dealing with InterDigital across a negotiating table, or in a courtroom.

Technology is a wonderful thing. As FDD and TDD evolve, and this includes the recent EV-DO and EV-DV additions (i.e. IS2000 release C and D, along with IS856) and the related 3GPP technologies (HSPDA), the door is open for discussion I suppose. Personally I would think that the talks between them would be done... I think it would be IDCC knocking on Qualcomm's door, not the other way around... but you never know... they both could be knocking on other doors, as others come up to speed.

I'll state one final opinion, and that is that anything that is happening in the world of G3G mobile wireless is, and should be, of interest to Qualcomm investors. One of the great attributes of this board is that discussion is not limited to Qualcomm, and instead, topics, companies, and issues, that affect Qualcomm are openly discussed.

We should keep things here on the QCOM board focused on QCOM. IDCC is a worthwhile play, and one to keep in the back pocket, I've made a tonne of cash trading IDCC, but QCOM for me is a core member of my personal investment strategy.

Some might be surprised, but there are quite a few lurkers on both sides of the fence regarding message boards, and both should be bookmarked, if anything, just to see what the other side is doing...

Best,

- Eric -

Same here...

sfx