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 166.32

-1.7%

12:40 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Eric L who wrote (17005)	12/2/2001 12:14:50 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) of 197189

If you would like to perpetuate the myth that so far as 3GPP is concerned there is no valid reason other than a Q IP workaround for utilizing 5 MHz carrier, asynchronous as well as synchronous mode of operation, AMR, authentication with SIM, etc, etc., feel free to do so. C'mon. I know you are a long-time observer of wireless issues, long in tooth, etc. Nevertheless, I've been around long enough to have noticed ETSI's refusal to allow CDMAOne into Europe, Nokia's stance that it's CDMAOne license was sufficient for 3G, and ERICY's fighting stance and ultimate capitulation. I remember reading all the laughable garbage about how UMTS would avoid Q's patents. Even an unbiased observer would infer that there was planning and concerted action. An unbiased observer would be compelled to ask: Why? The only reasonable answer would be the friction over open standards on the part of those who did not have IPR and proprietary ones on the part of those who did. If excluding QCOM was not a planned, concerted effort, then I'm the Tooth Fairy.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next