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 181.30

-0.5%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (9143)	3/28/2001 10:44:56 AM
From: Webster	Read Replies (1) of 196915

Mika, may I respectfully say that you are able to eloquently evangelize ignorance with your facts and figures. The "time honoured tradition" of cross licensing one might say is a form of creating a cartel with the intent of driving out competition and innovation. Your statement about the problem - new suppliers - if you are not part of the process from the outset, then you are able to eliminate future competition. I believe these "new suppliers" have to pay the GSM pool 15% as the "combination royalty." One might say that this is the supplier's problem and not the customer's problem. The IRP claims on WCDMA is incredibly high - you are correct. The IPR claims on cdma2000 is incredibly low. QCOM developed cdma2000 which it then licenses to all. No one company including future companies will be at a competitive disadvantage. WCDMA was designed by a committee. Now one could say all the wonderful things about these IPR claims, but the principal business issue of WCDMA is that if you are not part of the early process, then you will be faced with paying the "combined royalty". So with regards to future competition; what is open (WCDMA) is closed and what is closed (cdma2000)is open. Your belief that "WCDMA is one of the highest ever in any standardization drive than ever before" is correct. This is good for the cartel and it is bad for competition. Your interpretation that with QCOM's involvement, everything is now 5% more expensive. You are again correct. I have heard that the "combination royalties" are at least 18% on wcdma. One might also say that as a result of having an engine, the price of an automobile is more expensive. This would be true. Without an engine a car would not take you places. With WCDMA, QCOM is the engine. You go no where with out it. I think one of the real issues that in open dialog with people, it is very easy to rationalize your own position. I found no factual errors in your statement; but at the same time you are guilty of evangelizing the truth which is still very harmful. Harmful to the EU service operators who have spent $190 billion based on you and NOK evangelizing the truth. The problem comes when you are not able to deliver on the truth and then the EU service operators are faced with a financial crisis, because of the truth you evangelize. I believe the EU and all GSM operators might be better off listening with their eyes. FWIW Thanks Web.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next