TI and Qualcomm in rare agreement

As part of its push to take over the mobile phone world, Intel has its sights set firmly on Qualcomm and TI. Despite their fierce rivalry for device market share — and a bitter fight over CDMA and W-CDMA patents — this is one place where (to a limited degree) the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Bloomberg quotes Intel CEO Paul Otellini as recognizing the growth potential of mobile devices. Intel is trying to create a brand new segment distinct from smartphones — which it calls mobile Internet devices — where it hopes its Taiwanese OEM partners can enter without major competition from Nokia et al.

As Bloomberg reports:

“I'm skeptical -- that business is tough,” said analyst Bill Gorman at Pittsburgh-based PNC Institutional Investments, which owns 10.8 million Intel shares, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. “There is very difficult entrenched competition. Qualcomm continues to push state of the art; TI is going to remain a major player.”

Intel, the Santa Clara, California-based company whose products are the brains in more than 75 percent of the world's PCs, says only devices with chips based on those complex processors can run the Internet properly because the software at the backbone of the Web was written for computers.

Otellini predicts PC makers will buy Intel chips for new handheld computers, a market Texas Instruments and Qualcomm say their handset customers are exploring. Once he's won over mini- computer buyers with the new product, called Atom, Otellini plans to court phone makers as Intel creates less power-hungry models.

Somehow, I don’t quite see it. Even though Nokia and Intel are de facto cooperating on a Linux variant for these mobile internet devices, this is a frontal assault on Nokia’s 40+% market share for mobile phones based on ARM microprocessors.

Also, the claim that web browsers require an x86 processor to surf the web is silly. Communications bandwidth is going to be the limiting factor — unless you’re teaming up with Adobe to populate the mobile Internet with millions of compute-inefficient, Flash-infested web pages.

Next, there is the assumption that TI and Qualcomm will sit still. As the article notes, both are making more powerful cellphone processors — respectively with their OMAP and Snapdragon processor families. I suspect Otellini’s braggadocio will cause them to redouble their efforts.

If you're think you've heard this song before, you have. As the article notes, to enter the mobile phone market last time Intel spent $5 billion from 2000-2006 and only got about 10% of its money back. Thus far, Intel’s efforts to diversify away from the PC have been unsuccessful.

Given these obstacles — including the fierce opposition — I’d bet against Intel reaching $5 billion in mobile phone revenues by 2015. But I wouldn’t bet the house on it, and would only offer about 3:2 odds against Intel.

British standards for essential 3G patents

As decided last December, the ruling by the High Court of Justice for England and Wales on Nokia v Interdigital Technology Corp (2007) will have a major impact on how patents are licensed (and enforced) in mobile phone standards. Although the ruling is technically only binding in the UK, I believe the findings will impact the various patent lawsuits involving InterDigital (IDCC), Qualcomm (QCOM), Nokia (NOK), Broadcom (BCOM) and others holding (or seeking to avoid paying royalties on) mobile phone patents.

InterDigital declared to ETSI that various patents were essential for implementing the W-CDMA standard, but (as with all ETSI declarations) this self-determined essentiality was not independently verified. My interest here is not the SD telecom book, but a series of papers I’m doing with Rudi Bekkers on W-CDMA (aka UMTS) patents.

In this case, Nokia sued to have 29 InterDigital patents declared not-essential to W-CDMA. Nokia had previously won in English courts in an earlier case involving InterDigital’s GSM patents. This is all part of a larger strategy by Nokia to get out of paying any royalties to InterDigital.

Of the 29 “essential” patents, Nokia dropped its challenge to one patent, InterDigital conceded that 21 were not essential, did not defend three more, leaving four patents contested at trial. The judge, Sir Nicholas Pumfrey, ultimately ruled that only one patent was partially essential.

When the ruling by Sir Nicholas Pumfrey was released Dec. 21, 2007, InterDigital spun the ruling as a victory, but clearly InterDigital ended up telling the world (including current and potential licensees) that 27 of 28 patents patents declared essential to W-CDMA actually aren’t.

The findings are all covered in the ruling by Lord Justice Pumfrey, but I learned what it really meant from a forthcoming law review article:

Myles Jelf and Michael Stevenson, “Nokia v IDC: an essentially English judgment,” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2008, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 457-460. doi: 10.1093/jiplp/jpn084

The authors are not a party to the case, but attorneys at Bristows in London; they do a commendable job of explaining the findings in a style accessible to an IP-knowledgeable engineer or businessperson. A preprint copy of their article was posted May 21 to the journal website.

The article notes the contribution of the decision in deciding essentiality, providing a process for its evaluation, and even procedural precedents about to run such litigation. To quote the authors:

The overall approach adopted by the Courts appears to be as follows:

• Start out with the patent in one hand and the relevant standards in the other.
• Consider the correct construction of the patent, entirely independently of the standards, through the eyes of the skilled person.
• ...
• Consider to what extent the claim construction put forward corresponds with what is specified in the standards ...
• ...[D]ecide whether what is properly required by the standards falls within the language of the claim, as understood by the skilled person.

But (the authors argue) the contribution of the ruling goes beyond the process of determining essentiality to setting a standard for essentiality and providing procedural precedents about to run such litigation. I defer to the article for a more complete discussion of the ruling’s interpretation and implications.

Before he was promoted to become Lord Justice of Appeal last November, Pumfrey gained a reputation for handling complex patent cases. He drew from degrees in both physics and law that he earned before becoming a barrister in 1975, as well as three years as junior counsel in the UK patent office. But he was known more broadly for his expertise in IP law, ruling (for example) last year on a trademark case involving a transvestite beauty pageant.

Tragically, Pumfrey died three days after the ruling was published of a massive stroke he suffered on Christmas Eve. The judge, aged 56, apparently had a weight problem. Pumfrey was well-regarded for his specialized expertise and will be missed by his peers.

Photo credit: Sir Nicholas Pumfrey, from the Times of London January 3, 2008 obituary.

Viterbi's honorable mention

Andrew Viterbi, co-founder of Linkabit and Qualcomm, was one of four finalists for the biennual Millennium Technology Prize, which is awarded

to inspire and recognize innovations that can provide answers to the challenges of our time, promoting both the quality of human life and sustainable development.

The two previous winners of the prize invented the blue LED (which makes DVDs possible) and the world wide web (which makes reading this blog possible).

Brad Smith in Wireless Week explained how Viterbi’s 1967 publication of the Viterbi algorithm (allowing maximal signal/noise ratio on convolutionally encoded signals) changed the telecommunications world.

This morning in Helsinki, the Technology Academy of Finland. awarded the prize of €800,000 to another finalist, Robert Langer of MIT. Here’s the citation

Professor Robert Langer's innovations have had a significant impact on fighting cancer, heart disease, and numerous other diseases. His work has also brought about significant advances in tissue engineering, including synthetic replacement for biological tissues such as artificial skin. Over 100 million people a year are already using advanced drug delivery systems and this number is rising rapidly. In the future, tissue engineering may revolutionize medical treatment that could affect millions of other individuals. "Tissue engineering holds the promise of creating virtually any new tissue or organ," said Professor Langer.

Viterbi and the other finalists were awarded €115,000, which Viterbi previously said he’d donate to charity. Obviously this is still a high honor, crossing over from an industry-specific award to one recognized more broadly by society.

Vaudeville performers had a maxim: Never follow an animal act or a child act. So I guess I’d say that you don’t want to be a finalist against someone who’s curing cancer.