Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 169.45

-2.2%

12:23 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/17/1998 1:40:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Tero: Thank you so much for explaining the European perspective on "situation ethics". It is apparently proper business to "slam" a competing technology with falsehood and innuendo, while busily investing in R&D to close the gap. I am sure that ERICY's and NOK's customers appreciate being deceived by their vendors' desire to protect their GSM franchise. Your attempt at mutual exclusivity is also amusing. W-CDMA is optimized for high data rate, and IS-95 is optimized for mobile voice. There is no particular reason why the two standards cannot co-exist. Moreover, the simple act of endorsing a proposed standard is far removed from a vendor actually having a product to sell and a carrier actually writing a check. More amusing, you substantiate W-CDMA by saying that a bunch of companies have endorsed it, but consign QC to a niche market despite the fact that dozens of equipment manufacturers have not only endorsed the standard, but written checks for licenses and R&D to manufacture equipment. And let us not forget that IS-95 is being deployed in over thirty countries (but a guess this isn't much of an endorsement since it isn't consistent with your opinion). Isn't there a lack of symmetry to your logic? I was unaware that QC's management was engaging in wild claims; if being surprised by SEA is a "wild claim" then what do you call deliberately deceiving your customers about the future of TDMA-based GSM. Finally, where is your critique of QC's IPR vis-a-vis W-CDMA. You suggest that QC management is making wild claims, but make no attempt to substantiate the position with fact. QC's patents are public record, as is the proposed W-CDMA standard. Why don't you try to drive a stake through the heart of those San Diegan promoters by showing how the great Nordic braintrust can circumvent the IPR? It really would be more interesting, and illuminating, then your hyperbole. Gregg

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next