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 170.65

+1.5%

Dec 2 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (89872)	12/11/2000 3:21:11 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Hello Sharon, I suppose this decision was the settlement [if QUALCOMM lets it lie] of the disagreement between the Korean companies and QUALCOMM over the definition of PCS and cellular, which Q! claimed attracted different royalties. I don't think it's significant in the grand scheme of things. This was all argued here years ago. In relation to problems elsewhere as a result of this decision, it is likely to be a problem more for the W-CDMA crowd because this lumps PCS and cellular together and the essential difference is wavelength. The W-CDMA people seem to think that their 'different wavelength' and 'different bandwidth' might be enough to define it as not royalty bearing intellectual property of Q! Hahaahah to that! This decision says they are wrong. So if anything, this is good for QUALCOMM outside the payments they will have to make to the Koreans. Mqurice Edit...I now see it more posts explaining it.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next