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 163.32

+2.3%

Nov 21 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (9924)	4/17/2001 12:09:35 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) of 196724

It's not the fact that a patent-holder can legally exercise a monopoly, or license as he sees fit, that I have qualms about. Otherwise, I don't think I'd hold Q. It is the combination of several GSM IPR holders who alone can't do much to control a market but can in concert act as a monopoly or oligopoly, erecting (in concert) substantial barriers to competition which they cannot alone establish. Can't be right but it might be legal. I'm not sure that the US Dep't of Justice gave a hoot if is in fact violative of anti-trust laws because the anti-competitive effects were not felt in the US even though no doubt some US manufacturers were hurt internationally. And the European governments were probably happy with the arrangement as it allowed the Euros to attempt to establish hegemony over worldwide telecom. I'm certain that a lot of the Euro antipathy to Q has been due to its upsetting effect on the cozy Cabal and the enormous profits the GSM patent/cross-licensing arrangement made for its members.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next