Replies to post #104166 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

ed: I agree with you that Nokia was talking about the time to market product development cycle. In view of what seems to be a constant introduction of new models I was surprised that it would take as long as Nokia claimed. However, as you point out there is a lot involved. Here are some comments from a Jul/Aug 2003 article, from Wireless Systems Design. As noted, for a company like Nokia that wants to do almost everything in-house it can take as long as 18 months, but for the smaller companies that use standardized components, it can be done in about six months. ( the six month period is in agreement with what an independent design company claims it takes - see second URL cite).

“In addition, companies are leveraging alliances and collaborations to gain entry into new markets. Such measures can enable product development or help a company obtain key technology. Device companies also are compressing the product-development cycle. A typical timeline for the development and manufacture of a new handset is about 18 months. The use of standardized, modular components and outsourced production can reduce this timeline to around six months.”

Snip

“By developing a critical sense of time to market, each participant plays a crucial role in supplying value to the end customer. Participants also enable a more efficient, time- and cost-sensitive process for product development and introduction. This is exactly what's happening today. Wireless manufacturing is being divided into two camps. The first group believes that in-house, chip-level design allows manufacturers to maximize control and minimize risk (i.e., Nokia and Samsung). Then there are those who believe that the use of standardized wireless modules enables OEMs to focus on core competencies. In the latter camp are the companies looking to exploit economies of scale and output flexibility, such as TCL and Handspring.”


http://www.wsdmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=6025

http://www.my-esm.com/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=21800178

[pmf52]

RE: Apple and Orange Ferrari’s

I happen to agree with your evaluation of what Nokia is concerned about. However, I think we may disagree on their motivation.

If you care to review the table of contents of the Markman report included as an exhibit in the Nokia submittal in the Delaware case, I think you will find about 17 references to recommendations to the court. It seems to me the plain language of those recommendations support IDCC’s patent claims in 13 to 14 of those recommendations. I’ll grant that the single vs multiple base station issue was not recommended in IDCC’s favor but I’m really interested in your take on the other issues that were determined in their favor.

Additionally, Nokia’s brief admits that some intellectual properties in their current and future product designs are covered by IDCC 3G patent claims - as they now stand. It seems to me that is the whole basis of their argument for court action now instead of waiting until their current license expires in 2006.

So, I’m really curious about your opinion on how IDCC’s 3G patent claims would hold up under a Markman hearing given the apparent popular consensus that their 2G patents were poorly framed, compared to their more recent 3G patents, yet appear to hold some substance in the Markman report submitted to the court in the ERICY 2G dispute.

As a disclosure, I have a small long holding in IDCC stock -not enough to even think about entering the proxy fight ring. So, I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I’m just trying to make some sense out of what I’m reading in the court filings.

Thanks