But I infer from that statement that the architecture Siebel upon which Siebel builds its various modules, upon which Microsoft builds Excel, etc., is the proprietary architecture being referenced on the smallest scale.
At the risk of adding nothing but confusion, let me elucidate here by using examples.
Lotus was NOT a proprietary architecture. It was a proprietary program protected by copyright laws, not by patents. So one could copy the functionality of Lotus, but you could not copy the source code. One of the reasons Lotus failed to fend of Excel is because Lotus was not built on a proprietary architecture and Excel is. Excel is built upon the Windows architecture which allows such things as Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) and a whole bunch of other buzzwords that are the architectural features that makes MS OFFICE products work well together--word processing, e-mail, databases, presentation graphics, spread sheets, etc.
Again, I need to remind everyone that my outlook about CDMA is that the only real difference between Qualcomm's CDMA and everyone else's CDMA is that Qualcomm's works better.
I need to explore this with you, because I don't agree. If you had said "the only real difference between Qualcomm's CDMA ASICS and everyone else's CDMA ASICS is that Qualcomm's works better." I would have agreed. However, Qualcomm owns the IPR required to implement CDMA. The reason that QCOM is better at designing CDMA ASICS is because they have the expertise based on in-depth understanding of the CDMA "architecture" and their design and manufacturing experience in manufacturing CDMA ASICS chipsets. Another reason for their superior CDMA ASICS is their commitment to the success of that architecture, including building the value chain.
(This is similar to MSFT's experience with the Windows architecture. Many (Wordperfect, Excel, Oracle....) only implemented the most fundamental features of Windows architecture into their products because--they wanted MSFT to fail. They did NOT wish to become a part of the MSFT value chain!)
Take RMBS for example. To manufacture RDRAM a company must buy the IPR required from RMBS. (To build a Windows compliant program, you must obtain a license to use various development components for interfacing with the Windows architecture.)
(Don't think Qualcomm has the only CDMA because that's simply not true.)
Qualcomm owns the IPR required to implement the most fundamental parts of the CDMA architecture. No one can implement any CDMA without the rights to use QCOM's CDMA IPR. Thus QCOM has the only IPR required for all CDMA implementations. You can't write a Windows program without having right to use MSFT IPR, but, having that right, you may write many kinds of Windows applications.
Hope that helps. |
