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 173.60

+0.1%

Dec 30 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: foundation who wrote (31014)	1/11/2003 10:32:19 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) of 197054

Ben- Thanks again for your valued insight. You wrote->>”Samsung's China JV could just as easily manufacture MSM6300 handsets as Samsung alone, and this would certainly be MII's preference. It seems unlikely to me that cdma2000/GSM handset production would be the genesis of Samsung's newly won GSM rights... <<< I didn’t think of this aspect, so no doubt you’re correct. My thinking was that the Samsung/ Chinese company joint venture was to produce CDMA handsets. Could a handset intended for the GSM market (MSM6300 equipped) not qualify within that category and thus allow/ require Samsung to establish it’s own entity for GSM handset manufacturing? In any event, as you say, it sure is a slap in the face to NOK and sends another POSITIVE statement supporting CDMA2000 vs UTMS/WCDMA in the 3G battle ground arena. I wonder if anyone in the “analyst” community is savvy enough to pick up on this?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next