Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting 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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 165.13

+1.1%

Nov 26 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JMD who wrote (1612)	7/30/2000 1:23:27 PM
From: idler	Read Replies (2) of 196771

I must say I agree with you. I fail to see the compelling logic behind the spinoff. It seems to me the two major strategic advantages stated are: (1) Spinco will be free to cross-license GSM IPR without compromising Qualcomm's ability to derive royalties from CDMA licensing; and (2) there will be less conflicts with Spinco rather than Qualcomm selling chips to licensees of Qualcomm's CDMA IPR. As to (1), I simply don't see why Qualcomm was not equally free to cross-license GSM technology; whatever arrangements had to be made in existing royalty structures or patent licensing could have been done just as easily through Qualcomm as through Spinco. As to (2), the classic conflict situation was where, say customers of the AT&T division spun-off as Lucent who were also competitors of AT&T were reluctant to buy equipment from Lucent because they were creating profits for their competitor, i.e. AT&T. With Qualcomm, however, customers of the ASIC division were not direct competitors of the Qualcomm licensing-royalty division. There really are no comparable pure licensing companies, except maybe IDC. So I just don't see why spinning off ASICs reduces conflicts. In fact, since Spinco will be 90% owned by Qualcomm and all the Qualcomm top shareholders are also shareholders of Spinco, I don't see why potential customers of Spinco wouldn't regard Qualcomm as basically the same company, from a competitive standpoint. Bottom line, there has to be a reason why Qualcomm is doing this, but it just isn't clear from the S-1 or anything else.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next