David:
When traveling I always have my laptop with me. The combination of a good wireless modem and lots of dead time between flights and meetings allows for a higher level of participation then will be possible once I am back in the office.
With respect to W-CDMA. Consider that you and I and the rest of the thread are hanging on every word, trying to find the "gotcha". Meanwhile, QC and Ericsson are fighting a public war that includes politics, government telecom policy, intra & inter continental competitive issues and so forth. Given these dynamics, it doesn't make sense to be subtle. Each company will drive a stake in the ground and shout its position from the rooftop, hoping to see which way the crowd will run.
Qualcomm's June 2nd press release was such a stake in the ground. In the interim, I have questioned, and challenged, people up and down the organization. My point/question has been:
"why don't we let Ericsson have its proprietary W-CDMA. ERICY's proposed standard utilizes frequencies that are NOT EVEN AVAILABLE IN THE U.S., much of South America and elsewhere in the world (btw, its not even clear that the frequencies are available on a pan-european basis). The air-interface wars would be over. The whole world would converge around direct sequence spread spectrum and QC would collect royalties from everybody. Using IPR position as a club, Qualcomm would obtain whatever cross licenses necessary to sell a W-CDMA solution for a MAP (i.e. GSM) network. Ericsson would have fortress Europe, Qualcomm would have its cdmaOne fortress and life would go on. To my mind, this would be a pretty outstanding outcome for Qualcomm--even if it meant that worldwide digital standards would never converge."
Management didn't disagree that the above would be a good outcome. However, without equivocation, everybody in the organization seems united in the belief that QC's IPR position in strong enough to enable the company to far better. I have known these people for too long, and their trackrecord is too good, for me to hold my opinion over theirs. If Irwin were defensive, or had doubts about the company's legal position, the company would be taking a much more conciliatory tact.
Meanwhile, Ericsson's new president acknowledged on the last conference call that his company "would consider licensing QC's IPR were it to be necessary." As weak as it was, that admission was a near seismic event...as it was the first time Ericsson had ever suggested that QC's IPR might be necessary. Glaciers may move gradually, but they do move. Ericsson is pushing for the best deal it can get, and it is attempting to put Qualcomm under as much pressure as possible. Remember, however, Ericsson tried just as hard to kill CDMA back in 1989...it failed then. During that timeframe, CDMA had few friends in the world, CDMA's commercialization was years away, and QC was a marginally capitalized start-up. Considering that Irwin won that battle, with far fewer weapons, do you really think our hand is weaker today?
Finally, much of this "global standard" and "international roaming" is hype when you think about it. The percentage of U.S. wireless customers requiring one phone to work anywhere in the world is tiny--and declining as a percentage of the whole as more "middle Americans" become cellular customers. So clearly it makes no sense for QC to bastardize its cdmaOne standard to support a global standard of dubious merit.
Best Regards,
Gregg |
