Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 174.76

+0.3%

Dec 23 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Kayaker who wrote (40338)	9/10/1999 6:05:00 PM
From: MileHigh	Read Replies (3) of 152472

The more I learn about Q the more I realize how it faces similar issues and obstacles as RMBS. RE the attached article, whenever a IP company holds the rights to a particular technology standard or architecture (Q= CDMA; RMBS= RDRAM), there is always a groundswell of support from the competing companies to deploy a new standard that is open and requires no royalty payment. RMBS is not loved at all by MU, NEC, etc due to their IP lock on RDRAM, thus having to pay a royalty. I am not sure how QCOM's relationships are with T, BellSouth, Nokia, Sprint and other carries. Could someone discuss how these carriers and handset suppliers view Q? Is there a lot of animosity? A little? Or none? One just hates to have a whole industry out there banding together to try and come up with a free superior technology or architecture. I know it is a very real issue for RMBS, as soon as a better DRAM mousetrap is built and it is free, then they might be in trouble. Perhaps someone could discuss how this issue plays out in the wireless world? Meaning, is Q loved or hated due to having the lock!? TIA~ MileHigh

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next