On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:55:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <453bb094$0$88663$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
>> the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
>> actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
>> that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
>> free and open, relatively speaking.
>
>Well GSM anyway. W-CDMA is still CDMA, and Qualcomm still gets royalties.

Not true, as I've explained previously.

>CDMA was the perfect technology for the U.S., where spectrum efficiency
>was of paramount importance, and where the longer range of CDMA made it
>more suitable for eventual replacement of rural AMPS. This is why CDMA
>continues to be the dominant technology in the U.S. and why it continues
>to gain market share (though with Sprint's declining fortunes, I think
>that CDMA's market share will begin to stabilize and not keep going up).

Not true.

>It has less advantages in densely populated countries, such as most of
>Western Europe, where spectrum was not as limited, and where longer
>range is not as much of an issue.
>
>But yes, Nokia, and other phone manufacturers despise Qualcomm, much as
>memory manufacturers despise Rambus. In Qualcomm's case, their patents
>are ironclad, unlike Rambus's patents.

Not true.

0 for 3.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>