Replies to post #6719 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[bulldzr]

What a guy!!! I do agree with part of your post...If anybody would know what a circle F##K is, it is you.

Later and Best, bulldzr

[arthritis65]

rich: once ..are you brothers? to post what you and once have posted on the idcc board,,my only reponse is screw both of you....rich who did you and rox breed once ..he sure is a dna match for both of you....you say we take up for idcc....who better than you once.roc. and other qcom folks have castigated anyone that was negative of qcom...if we cant go back and forth as supporterss i promise you some of us can get more hateful than once...art...ps we didnt start this qcommers did

arthritis59

[dws]

Rich, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about IDCC and its prospects, IPR and industry standing. I happen to be in the camp that think we have essential IPR and will be paid for it. When.... is anybody's guess, the $$ is very overdue.

Other's may flame you, not me. I want to see the whole picture from people smarter than I, then I'll determine what to digest and what to leave on the plate.

[ziploc_1]

Rich

I am certainly not one to flame you. I appreciate contrary views. However, your posts sometimes carry a tone that is less than totally impartial. For example you wrote:
"IDCC is an outgrowth of the old Linkabit company. Dr. Jacobs old company. Their patents are largely (although not completely) a subset of that old company. I am one that questions whether or not they have essential patents and if they do, whether or not they can do anything with them. I really don't know." Although this post is not really to bash IDDC, it does have a tone that is a little dismissive. Agreed?

[dagrinch]

To paraphrase, I don't often comment on Rich Bloem, but I can't help myself this morning.

I thought the purpose of this board, as with several others, is to discuss research, and analysis and interpretation of that research, plus to add an ample sprinkle of personal opinion, all in an effort to determine the value and direction of an investment in IDCC. Although you may not respect the efforts of others here, apparently you place a very high value on your own "feelings" and supposedly middle-ground opinion.

As has been posted, your words are very dismissive of IDCC and any discussion here.

For one who can recite chapter and verse on the Qualcomm patent portfolio, you certainly seem to lack any ability to research and evaluate IDCC patents. Now I am not the one with the time and background to offer a detailed response on this point, nor do I care to, but it doesn't take much more than a fool to see that GSM patents using a base station (or stations) for wireless transmission of telephony is potentially an important, and essential, patent. The Markman report, largely though not completely favorable to IDCC, certainly seemed to present the case.

Whether IDCC will prevail against Ericsson is yet to be proven, and that will ultimately determine the value of those patents, as so much in IDCC's 2G licensing seems to hinge upon this one action. This will eventually provide the proof of any argument which is, I believe, one of your points with which I can agree.


Personally, I think that anyone who thinks IDCC hasn't many important patents--can't find them--in 3G UMTS really hasn't done any honest research, or has declined to offer any honest assessment of their positioning. The answer is so readily available that to discuss these points, especially with one who can recite Q patents with ease, is ludicrous.

As before, though, the ultimate proof is in the licensing and enforcement of those patents. The most hardened IDCC cheerleader/supporter would concede this. And I would concede that sometimes it seems that licensing is proceeding at a glacial pace.

And lastly, you try to deflect the various responses to your rather shallow comments by saying in advance that other posters will "flame" you. Tch. Tch. Whatever.

in peace,
dagrinch

[rmarchma]

Richbloem re IDCC’s essential patents you said:

...”I am one that questions whether or not they have essential patents and if they do, whether or not they can do anything with them. I really don't know...Personally, I don't think that IDCC has many really important patents--if they do I can't find them.”

IDCC declared 69 “essential” United States non-duplicated patents to ETSI in April 2001. 16 of these patents are 2G TDMA/GSM, of which 6 of these are involved in the Ericy litigation, and 53 are 3G UMTS/CDMA. Also this declaration represented only the actually issued patents by the USPO through April 2001, and NO pending patents. Since it takes about two or more years for a pending patent filing to get issued, this declaration probably does not consider any of IDCC's patent filings after April 1999, which have been very extensive. This patent declaration to ETSI involved what IDCC thinks are “essential”, and of course the declaration itself does not necessarily make them essential. Summary information on each one of these 69 patents declared essential to ETSI linked as follows:

http://webapp.etsi.org/IPR/Results.asp?Company=InterDigital+Technology+Corp.&Country=&Projec...

Now my first question to you is: have you done extensive research into each one of these 69 indicated patents? My second question to you is: are you a wireless patent attorney? My third question is: are you someone who otherwise possesses the necessary qualifications and skills to analyze and understand the “importance” of these specific patents of IDCC? (Note: I personally do not have the qualifications to analyze/interpret the importance and essentiality of the indicated patents, but you may).

[Dave Davis]

Rich:

I am a non-techie lurker. So i can't speak to the essentiallity of IDCC's patents. But here are some examples (out of many I have seen on this board and elsewhere) of why I think IDCC has what they say they have.

I do not have an agenda. And I appreciate contrarian views that are offered in a constructive spirit, such as yours. I think QCOM and IDCC are two great 'teams'.

However, IMHO, IDCC is significantly undervalued relative to QCOM. I think anyone who does a little due diligence and crunches the numbers (e.g., Nokia, etc.) will reach the same conclusion.

Peace

Dave Davis

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/ipr/patents/notices/index.html

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/ipr/patents/notices/index.html