Replies to post #14525 on Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[JeffreyHF]

DR, several years ago I e-mailed Qualcomm IR concerning IP Wireless, and was told they were in negotiations with same, and expected an agreement at an appropriate time. Conference calls have made it clear that litigation is sometimes deferred, so as to allow fledgling companies an opportunity to get established.
I don`t think it`s safe to infer that no license will be forthcoming, simply because commercial (niche) product is being shipped without one: however, it may be time for another e-mail to IR.

[Jim Mullens]

DR, Re; IPWireless , thanks for your insight.

Per the prior article >>” UMTS TD-CDMA is based on the existing UMTS variant of 3G and can be added easily to a 3G operator's network, said Jon Hambidge, vice president of marketing at IPWireless in San Bruno, Calif. Because of its connection to the UMTS standard, it will be allowed on frequencies that in some parts of the world are reserved for that type of technology, he said. “

<<<<<<<<<<

If the IPWireless product is just added to a 3G network, all of the handsets supporting such, those made by USTarcomm (or anyone for that matter) would then be 3G- WCDMA and would therefore be royalty bearing to the Q, right? I’m thinking therefore, the handset maker would pay the royalties to the Q even if IPWireless had no license.

Does the above make any sense?