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 172.98

+1.1%

Jan 2 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: y2kate who wrote (75722)	7/7/2000 4:53:34 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 152472

I suppose we disagree, Kate. I see it a bit differently than you do. These FUD wars are old hat to the Q. Started with Frezza, then ERICY, then MOT, and now NOK. Each one of those opponents except NOK (for the time being) has been fully or partially vanquished. Remember that ERICY was in absolutely no different position than NOK when it settled. At some point, Dr. J. made a decision not to respond to the FUD because I assume he felt that a response would dignify it. That's fine with me, I understand the biz plan, and don't need to be reassured. Look, I don't mean to patronize but it really is ultimately quite simple. The Q has the IPR and is at least a year ahead in expertise on all flavors of 3G, which will be huge. Having ownership of the IPRs allow it to take a very hard-nosed position which can be mistaken for arrogance. The Q must and has taken such a position because to do otherwise is to not take full advantage of a legally-created monopoly position. Dr. J has stuck to his guns and I admire him for it. Telecom is not a charity and no one gives away their good stuff. Did Apple have the quality of IPRs that Q has? I think not.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next