SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company
QCOM 174.01-0.3%Nov 14 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: A.L. Reagan who wrote (8409)4/7/2000 8:28:00 PM
From: Clarksterh  Read Replies (1) of 13582
 
ALR - If there were not a distinct probability from NOK's viewpoint that they can mitigate the royalty situation (and disadvantage the Asian h.s. makers) by so vigorously promoting the DS mode, they would not be expending the resources to do so. They also would not be risking their entire corporate credibility on this effort if QCOM has an easy blocking mechanism, and neither would carriers being going along with W-CDMA if this were true.

I am completely serious when I say this sounds just like the arguments that were made last year in regards to Ericsson - 'why would Ericsson (Nokia) do it if there weren't some advantage to them?'. There are several assumptions implicit in this attitude:

1) Big companies are always well managed in all regards - obviously untrue. Just because Nokia is a great manufacturing house doesn't make them a good R&D house or a good IPR house. The skill sets are very very different. (In a very different vein, Cisco is very good at dealing with acquisitions, but I'd love to see Nokia or any other world class company try to do it)

2) That there is no advantage to pure FUD. If they can delay CDMA-2000 long enough (with FUD) for them to get their act together for CDMA systems, they won't lose market share when 3g CDMA comes in. Not an unreasonable strategy, although risky.

3) There is an assumption that Joe Q. Public doesn't understand telecom IPR. Not true in my case, and I like to think I do a reasonable job explaining it to other people on the thread.

Clark
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News