SI
SI
discoversearch

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 169.27-4.8%Jan 12 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Kayaker who wrote (17276)12/12/2001 10:55:23 AM
From: Eric L  Read Replies (3) of 197177
 
Kayaker,

<< Eric, I haven't heard back from you (#reply-16737675) so I thought I'd ask again.... >>

My apologies. That subject got beat pretty much to death here and the dialogue continued on the thread where it started. I wanted to avoid redundancy.

<< European carriers ... how do you explain their decision to reject CDMA2000 as anything other than an attempt to avoid Qualcomm IPR? >>

Bottom line ... the carriers you refer to ... European, Chinese, Japanese, American (whatever) are dedicated to open comittee-based standards not proprietary open standards and in addition their functional requirements differed significantly from the single converged standard (based on the 5 principles) that Qualcomm promoted.

The carriers concern is significantly less centered on IP matters than they are on equipment interoperability (vendor to vendor and network to network), compatibility with elements of their existing network, and extensions of voice and data roaming.

For the vendors, obviously IP is an issue and an important one. If they could work around it they would, but they could not.

As much as IP license and royalty payments is concerned, the larger issue is strategic control of the architecture of the overall platform and the competitive advantage that accrues from same. Qualcomm wanted it (as they should) and Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, Siemens, et al, did not want them to have it.

Again, my apologies for not responding directly to your question earlier. One of my posts here on that subject in that time frame to a similar question:

Message 16736739

Good post by Slacker on this topic elsewhere to which I responded:

Message 16752729

<< At the recent analysts' meeting, Dr. IJ gave a detailed response (#reply-16692685) to questions regarding the 3-5 year delay of WCDMA vs CDMA2000 and numerous reasons why WCDMA will be lower in capacity as compared to CDMA2000 (note that he addressed both the 5 Mhz, and asynchronous vs synchronous issues). >>

That was a fine explanation from Dr. Jacobs.

Other captains of industry have divergent opinions on that.

I listen to his. I listen to theirs.

Best,

- Eric -
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext