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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 178.29-1.6%Dec 12 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (1385)7/26/2000 8:22:58 AM
From: JGoren  Read Replies (2) of 196959
 
I don't think allowing NOK to save face has anything to do with the spinoff. It's a hardnosed business decision to maximize bargaining power and extract every dollar it can from NOK. Qcom warned NOK the royalty rate would increase if NOK continued to delay. NOK delayed. And now it PAYS. What is worse for NOK competitively is that this is happening just as NOK needs Qcom chips in the worst way. The only saving grace may be that Qcom licenses TXN to make chips for the commercial market, but TXN delayed also. TXN just agreed to pay a bunch of money for dotcomm wireless. While it may have been partially to obtain cdma engineers, the TXN CC emphasized acquisition of cdma IPR. Seems like TXN, in retrospect, has "overpaid" by paying for something it did not need to. Now, when it will come to Qcom to license patent rights, it will have to pay the higher price. Imho, the royalty rate for chip manufacture is worth a lot more than other licenses and the royalty rate should be higher than for infra or handsets. Although I am a TXN shareholder, too, Qcom should stick it to TXN. I think this is coming soon; in TXN CC management said it would obtain license when the time came--indications were fairly soon as TXN has its eye on wcdma chip biz.

One curious thing. Why is HDR going to spinco? I would have thought that technology and IPR would stay with Qcom.
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