G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:53:15 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:27:27 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <PYtvd.11795$_3.131773@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>
>> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
>> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>> Date: Yesterday 11:27 PM
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <0001HW.BDE3B11B00014E2FF02845B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
>> 20:50:35 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?
>>>>
>>>> Patent licensing.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>>> So in essence ... the entire world will be at Qualcomm's doorstep at some
>>> point in the future ....
>>
>> I think that's a bit of an overstatement.
>
>Just a little bit ..... 🙂 But you get the idea .... capturing the market
>of both CDMA networks and GSM networks ... kinda nice from Qualcomm's
>perspective.
>
Actually it does Qualcomm little good. The GSM versions were carefully
spec'd to avoid almost all of the Qualcom patents
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:53:15 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:27:27 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <PYtvd.11795$_3.131773@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>
>> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
>> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>> Date: Yesterday 11:27 PM
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <0001HW.BDE3B11B00014E2FF02845B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
>> 20:50:35 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?
>>>>
>>>> Patent licensing.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>>> So in essence ... the entire world will be at Qualcomm's doorstep at some
>>> point in the future ....
>>
>> I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

>
>Just a little bit ..... 🙂 But you get the idea .... capturing the market
>of both CDMA networks and GSM networks ... kinda nice from Qualcomm's
>perspective.
>
Actually it does Qualcomm little good. The GSM versions were carefully
spec'd to avoid almost all of the Qualcom patents