Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mauser96 who wrote (2642)	6/15/1999 11:17:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) of 54805

Lucius, anybody can make phones to fit this standard even though they will pay royalties. Isn't that like saying any PC manufacturer can put Windows98 in their computers even though they will have to license it? It's just my opinion, but I think you answered your own question when you asked someone to show you the proprietary control QCOM has on CDMA. The control is that QCOM commands royalties every time someone makes a phone that fits the standard. When you mention the three modes, nobody is implying that QCOM is the gorilla of ALL wireless modes. In fact, I was a little bit ridiculed when I suggested a long time ago that QCOM is the gorilla of "only" their niche product line. The excitement is that the niche today is a huge market tomorrow, just as Cisco became a gorilla of networking when that market was relatively small. In the example of QCOM, if I understand you correctly, your thinking is that the standards committee is in control, not QCOM. I disagree. My thinking is that QCOM was successful in getting their proprietary architecture accepted by a standards body in the way Sun has unsuccessfully wanted to happen with their Java. One reason the committee hasn't accepted Sun's architecture as a standard is because they WANT Sun to give up control though Sun refuses. As I understand it, the difference in the Q's case is that the standards body didn't require that QCOM give up control. In summary, when Moore and his co-authors speak of standards committees taking control away from the owner of proprietary architectures, my understanding is that we are seeing a unique situation with QCOM. Though I disagree with you based on my understanding, I have no qualms with you thinking QCOM gave up proprietary control in the way they got the standards committee to accept their technology as part of the standard. You feel you have a command of the facts as do I. Please remember that my only problem of sorts with Moore is that he offers a public opinion while at the same time acknowledging that he doesn't have command of the facts. Alwasys looking forward to your posts, --Mike Buckley

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next