Tero:
Some time back you asked why the memory of Bill Frezza lurks in the thread's collective memory...I thought I might respond.
Since you were a participant in the Frezza Forum, you know first hand how Frezza repeatedly, dogmatically, vociferously and vitriolically pronounced CDMA's pending failure. I am certain you recall how many times I pointed out to all on the thread that Bill was formerly Ericsson's director of marketing and business development. Moreover, I am certain you recall Bill citing his "knowledgable sources" at Ericsson when he claimed that CDMA systems would collapse under load, that IS-95 at 800mhz would be an "unmitigated disaster" and that Sprint and/or PrimeCo were imminently going to switch technology.
As you well know, the "will CDMA work" debate was extremely bitter and misinformation was the order of the day. As the WSJ currently proclaims Qualcomm "desperate" I am reminded that this same publication published an article in September of 1996 entitled "Jacob's Patter" which went on to claim, more or less, that CDMA was a fraud foredoomed to failure. Back in 1996, I had a vast collection of fact-based evidence that led me to believe that CDMA would be a commercial success...yet despite all the research, facts and "insight" that I possessed, Wall Street was largely unconvinced as most analysts deferred to the Ericsson rhetoric. Fast forward to today. Now the debate has shifted from whether the technology works, to believe it or not, who invented it. It's times like this where I feel like Alice in Wonderland, but without the calming influence of hallucinogenic drugs to dim my indignation. I sometimes wish I could reach across the electronic void and shake people...to ask them how can they be so naive, so forgetful, so stupid as to dismiss the lessons of just two years ago, and once again fall prey to the Ericsson marketing machine.
Back in 1996 I argued that it was inconcievable that Airtouch, BellAtlantic, Sprint, PrimeCo et al, had somehow been magically deluded into supporting CDMA. As I pointed out that all the objective evidence suggested that CDMA would work, many chose to believe Frezza and the Ericsson fiction. They were obviously wrong. Today we have an equally obvious situation. Qualcomm claims to hold IPR essential to Ericsson's proposed W-CDMA standard while Ericsson claims otherwise. To my profound astonishment, people again seem to be dismissing evidence that I presume would be obvious to a child. Without essential IPR, how can Qualcomm be holding up the standards process? If Qualcomm has nothing that Ericsson and its W-CDMA adherents need, why is there such an angry debate? Why is there impasse and controversy? Why can't the ITU, DoCoMo and everybody else just go about their business without Qualcomm's blessing?
I feel like I am watching a "B" grade slasher movie and I am the only one who realizes that Jason and his axe are hiding in the caboose as the young virgin hurries to hide (by herself) in the same caboose. Duh. Duh. Duh. The emperor shed his clothes last week and nobody seemed to notice. People don't compromise their position unless there is something to be obtained through the compromise. Duh. Duh. Duh. If one simply recognizes the obvious, then it should be apparent that Qualcomm has no motivation to compromise; it has no incentive to weaken its IS-95 position to assist Ericsson with the formulation of a competing standard; it simply is not in Qualcomm's business interest to precipitate the balkanization of CDMA world standards to facilitate Ericsson's objective of protecting its installed base.
We therefore have a situation where an apparently unstoppable force, i.e. Ericsson, has run squarely into the proverbial unmovable object, i.e. Qualcomm. Moreover, Qualcomm cannot compromise without abrogating its fiduciary obligations to people like myself who are demanding an improved return on our investment. So...where does this end up?
I firmly believe that Qualcomm cannot and will not compromise on its IPR position. This presents one of three possible outcomes (1) Ericsson et al spend the next three to five years trying to design around Qualcomm's patents and/or litigating in every jurisdiction where QC holds said IPR, (2) the Europeans find a face-saving way to capitulate or (3) Qualcomm is acquired by its antagonists. To my intense dismay, I believe that much of the PR circus that we are currently witnessing is orchestrated specifically to facilate the latter possibility.
As Qualcomm's largest institutional shareholder, I want it known that we understand the ploy...we comprehend the stakes...we aren't fooled by the falsehood and deception...and our shares are not, and will not, be available to an abusive bidder. With our seven percent position, management's stock, a staggered Board and a poison pill, Qualcomm will not go quickly, easily or without a protracted fight.
GJP |
