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 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: tero kuittinen who wrote (10857)	5/26/1998 2:01:00 AM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (2) of 152472

O.K. Tero, lets talk. First up every paper in the world has a slant, as long as you know that and know what the slant of the particular paper is then you can for the most part get past it. For instance noone in their right mind could claim that the Wall Street Journals coverage of the CDMA question in general and QCOM in specific could be called neutral. They did a hatchet job from the beginning and are still doing it in the end. By the same token noone could claim that the CDG is an impartial spectator and commentator. If you take the average of their views and filter the information then you can find a kernal of truth. If you take the word of ANY paper as inviolat then you are not as smart as you seem to patently be. If you look at all of the major advances that QCOM and its associated engineers have made (and patented) they for the most part happened before 1992. So when your Finnish university began its research it was already standing on the shoulders of those advances. That is pure timeline. On a purely technological standpoint lets consider what has happened since then. I would be willing to bet a years salary that the QCOM engineering team has not stood still. They have a vested interest in advancing CDMA in general and IS-95 as a specific flavor. Since they had at least 3 years of head start (QCOM started in '89 right?) they would most likely have made better progress than someone who only started in '92. It had nothing to do with talent, it has to do with focus and momentum. You say that the large Asian conglomerates did not make any significant mark into the GSM market. In the past it has been said here on the thread that if you started from scratch and had no patents to trade then a liscence for GSM would be much more expensive than one for IS-95. This is because the IPR for GSM is spread all across the major European companies that produce it. In that atmosphere you CANNOT call GSM an open standard that anyone but a select few have any chance of producing. In your other point on that thread of thought you say that the major Asian conglomerates have accepted GSM. I saw NTT, but I also saw that Denso (a division of Toyota I believe) Sony, Matsushita, Hyundai, Samsung, and LG all accepted CDMA. If those aren't some of the larger conglomerates of Asia then please point out who is. And last but not least let's talk profit margins and production capacities. QCOM never made a phone before last year, and now they have announced around 600k per month with an eventual target of 700k+ per month. I think that you had better get your facts straignt before you come back in the deep end of the pool. Michael

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next