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 159.59

-3.9%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (17054)	10/23/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: Bon Scott	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Mika Kukkanen wrote on Oct 23 1998 3:56PM EST* I believe (my view) is that most of the problems have occurred because Qualcomm have been over playing the IPR issue and convergence. The reason: They may have limited access to the (future and possibly) larger 3G market, unless convergence is achieved. Waving the IPR issue is a way of trying to achieve this. Of course, if Ericsson really have a case they can play the same card...and we all get nowhere fast! ***************************************************************** It's pretty simple, if Ericy didn't need QCOM for their version of 3G, they wouldn't be bothering. They would have pulled up anchor, open the sails, and yelled "hasta la vista baby", and sailed off into the 3G sunset. The fact that Ericy is even messing around with QCOM indicatates that they can't do it w/o QCOM. It's a very thin vail they are hiding behind with all this litigation stuff. They have basically three paths to go: (1) Come into the fold. Come straight up and sign a license w/QCOM for IS-95 at fair terms and conditions that EVERY OTHER major infrastructure manufacturer has done. (2) Try to scare and bully QCOM (a smaller company) into a free cross licensing agreement. (3) Don't license and continue to be left out in the cold.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next