Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips

"U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Monday, the latest in
a series of legal victories Broadcom scored over Qualcomm last year
related to rights to technology for cell phones. The three patented
chips use WCDMA technology, a small but fast-growing part of the
wireless market used mostly in American T-Mobile and AT&T phones.

Selna ruled that Qualcomm can continue to sell other disputed chips in
the United States until January 2009, but must pay royalties on those
chips, which use a different technology called EVDO and are used on
Verizon and Sprint networks in America. He also allowed Qualcomm to use
a patented Broadcom walkie-talkie technology until January 2009."

Broadcom and Qualcomm must be very far apart on settling. Reminds me of
the whole RIM mess last year, but they settled eventually, as everyone
predicted.

This whole patent dispute is one reason that W-CDMA didn't make it into
the iPhone.

YOu're posting old news. Qualcomm already announced new
complaint chipsets

http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...62822220080102


On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:23:15 -0800, SMS ???• ?
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>"U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Monday, the latest in
>a series of legal victories Broadcom scored over Qualcomm last year
>related to rights to technology for cell phones. The three patented
>chips use WCDMA technology, a small but fast-growing part of the
>wireless market used mostly in American T-Mobile and AT&T phones.
>
>Selna ruled that Qualcomm can continue to sell other disputed chips in
>the United States until January 2009, but must pay royalties on those
>chips, which use a different technology called EVDO and are used on
>Verizon and Sprint networks in America. He also allowed Qualcomm to use
>a patented Broadcom walkie-talkie technology until January 2009."
>
>Broadcom and Qualcomm must be very far apart on settling. Reminds me of
>the whole RIM mess last year, but they settled eventually, as everyone
>predicted.
>
>This whole patent dispute is one reason that W-CDMA didn't make it into
>the iPhone.

That's a fiction about the iphone. It was a battery consumption and
size issue.

Ron wrote:
> YOu're posting old news. Qualcomm already announced new
> complaint chipsets
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...62822220080102

I hope they're new chipsets are not complaint chipsets!

They're announced, but not available yet. It'll take a while for the
chips to be manufactured, then designed into phones. It could easily
take six months to see products with the new chips.

Broadcom will likely claim that the new chips still violate their patents.

> More reason to wait for the Google phone and the results of the analog
> TV bandwidth auctions. Don't buy a new phone this year !!

Eh, until they actually start deploying radio HARDWARE it's pointess to
speculate. You can have all the superior technology you want, but if it
doesn't have radios on poles covering areas you need then it's pointless.
We ditched cingular for precisely this reason, their coverage just sucks in
the places we need to go. Doesn't matter how good the phones are if the
coverage sucks.

"4phun" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e59b41f8-8974-4047-9ace-4c1172d0dabc@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 1:17 pm, jgrov...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 8:09 am, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ron wrote:
>> > > YOu're posting old news. Qualcomm already announced new
>> > > complaint chipsets
>>
>> > >http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...62822220080102
>>
>> > I hope they're new chipsets are not complaint chipsets!
>>
>> > They're announced, but not available yet. It'll take a while for the
>> > chips to be manufactured, then designed into phones. It could easily
>> > take six months to see products with the new chips.
>>
>> > Broadcom will likely claim that the new chips still violate their
>> > patents.
>>
>> More reason to wait for the Google phone and the results of the analog
>> TV bandwidth auctions. Don't buy a new phone this year !!
>
> Nah the iPhone is some much sheer fun you will miss out on a year of
> great stuff. Just sell it and get your money back when something
> better arrives.

There is a fundamental flaw in your premise.
The second that a 3G iPhone hits the market, EVERY EDGE iPhone
immediately depreciates dramatically. Maybe not zero, but damn near.
It is what I call a bad investment. Now, if you can afford buying toys and
can afford buying another one in a year or so, then go for it...

"Ness-Net" <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in news:OP-dnV-
Jjaiwxh3anZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> EVERY EDGE iPhone
> immediately depreciates dramatically. Maybe not zero, but damn near.
>

Ebay will be flooded...(c;

Why would Apple be so stupid as to make their customer base ANGRY at losing
$600 or $500 or $400 in a few months? It's stupid.

Upgraded the whole Nokia N800 Linux tablet to the new OS2008, tonight.
Took the plunge...(c; I may have gone overboard loading programs. It
needs a 750GB hard drive...(c; The new map function is downloading 733MB
of USA East maps, as I type this. They integrated a talking mapware right
into the new OS2008 and GAVE IT TO US! Way cool....



Larry
--
Next time some broker tells you what a great investment he's selling,
ask him about Rhodium, a shiny metal used in Catalytic Converters.
Jan 1st 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Rhodium $452 $1341 $3006 $5339 $6775 PER OUNCE!
How much longer can we pay for new cars at this rate?
Feb '97 it was $182/oz

> Why would Apple be so stupid as to make their customer base ANGRY at
> losing
> $600 or $500 or $400 in a few months? It's stupid.

Apple is famous for screwing their exising bleeding edge customers. Why
would they be any different this time? The Apple fanboys are so ****ing
stupid. They'll probably come up with some silly ass rationalization about
how they were "helping" the company by going along with it. Cripes, it's
practically the Stockholm syndrome.

In news:JvSdndtC2YY-iBzanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net,
Bill Kearney <wkearney99@hotmail.com> typed:
>> Why would Apple be so stupid as to make their customer base ANGRY at
>> losing
>> $600 or $500 or $400 in a few months? It's stupid.
>
> Apple is famous for screwing their exising bleeding edge customers. Why
> would they be any different this time? The Apple fanboys are so ****ing
> stupid. They'll probably come up with some silly ass rationalization
> about how they were "helping" the company by going along with it. Cripes,
> it's practically the Stockholm syndrome.


They believe everything Steve Jobs says since he knows best.

Ness-Net wrote:

<snip>

> There is a fundamental flaw in your premise.
> The second that a 3G iPhone hits the market, EVERY EDGE iPhone
> immediately depreciates dramatically. Maybe not zero, but damn near.
> It is what I call a bad investment. Now, if you can afford buying toys and
> can afford buying another one in a year or so, then go for it...

First of all, don't assume that the 3G iPhone means no more EDGE
iPhones. The monthly pricing on the 3G model will likely be higher, or
you'll be able to have your choice of 3G or EDGE service at different
price points. It isn't corporations buying iPhones, it's individuals
that may be happy paying $20 less per month and having the lower speed.

Second, the judges ruling will delay the 3G iPhone in the U.S., as
Qualcomm cannot sell their current chip design, and the cycle time to
get new silicon into devices is long to very long, depending on how many
revisions of silicon they need to go through. By the time the 3G iPhone
hits stores, it'll be a year since the first model.

Third, company's really can't be too concerned that their newer products
will hurt the resale value of their older products, nor do most
purchasers expect the company to stop introducing new products.

Fourth, the current iPhone buyers purchased their iPhones knowing full
well that a 3G model would be introduced, they just didn't know when.
Very few will be really mad about it.

Finally, there's a tendency to dismiss all iPhone buyers as morons,
based on Usenet posts in CSMA or the alt.cellular groups. It gives a
really warped picture of the average iPhone user, who would be aghast
and angry to be equated with the fanboys that post on Usenet. They knew
the feature limitations when they bought it, and they're not spending
time rationalizing the missing pieces. It's not a phone I would buy for
a host of reasons, but those I know that them are happy with them for
the most part. The biggest complaint is not the lack of 3G, it's the
lack of voice-dialing.

Bill Kearney wrote:
>> Why would Apple be so stupid as to make their customer base ANGRY at
>> losing
>> $600 or $500 or $400 in a few months? It's stupid.
>
> Apple is famous for screwing their exising bleeding edge customers. Why
> would they be any different this time? The Apple fanboys are so ****ing
> stupid. They'll probably come up with some silly ass rationalization about
> how they were "helping" the company by going along with it. Cripes, it's
> practically the Stockholm syndrome.

As I recall, it was a mark of honor to have paid $10,000 for a Lisa and
then to have gotten the letter (and pin) telling you that the computer
they would henceforth be developing software for only cost $5,000.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.