>I'm still not sure I understand why Q would be hurt by a multiple standard environment, assuming Q does indeed hold essential IPR in any CDMA proposal, especially if that's what the operators want.I suppose they'd suffer a PR defeat which would be bad for moral. But how different is WCDMA? Couldn't Q sell chips and phones into that mkt too? And what if CDMA2000 is the 'better" network?<
Multiple standards would not "hurt" Qualcomm. Presently, the Q has no access to GSM markets so actually, multiple standards (W-CDMA and CDMA2000) would be better than the current situation since they would receive royalties from W-CDMA and if they choose, could manufacture W-CDMA equipment. But why should the Q consider this? Irwin has already said he will not license Q's patents for multiple standards. I feel like a dead horse is being flogged. Has he lied or mislead investors before? I can't recall anything.
So, it looks like it is a question on whether the various standards bodies have any real authority or not. With the U.S. ready to defend open markets as if it is the only national religion, I think the standards bodies look like little weenies. They can decide whatever they want, but if that decision closes markets to U.S. technology there could be big trouble. And as long as foreign markets remain open to U.S. technology I think we all know who will win. Even if Q refuses to license their IPR for a competing standard. That would mean CDMA2000 will be competing with the best solution that can be cobbled together using TDMA.
Is there reliable evidence that Ericsson IRP is required for CDMA2000? What is this IPR and how important is it for network efficiency? Qualcomm has already indicated they can do High Data Rate (HDR)CDMA without Ericssons IPR. If Q's HDR went head to head with the best TDMA based solution, who do you think would win. TDMA does not offer the network flexibility of CDMA and there is no reason to think it will in the future. Who needs higher data rates than HDR provides? Certainly not the smart soda machines, smart cars, etc. The only thing that needs more than HDR can offer is wireless full motion video. Actually I believe that HDR can achieve even that!
The whole 3G situation is a bluff to get lower license rates and perhaps multiple standards so the GSM crowd can gain an advantage. CDMA has been very profitable so far without GSM markets. Perhaps if Ericsson and others don't come to Qualcomms terms, they would be better off to continue on the path they have paved. What will AT&T do if they find themselves competing head-head with CDMA networks here in the U.S? The growth potential in Canada, U.S., Mexico, Central and South America, N.Z. Aus, etc. is mind-boggling for CDMA and Qualcomm with or without convergence. In other words, a bluff is only effective if the buffer has leverage. Do they? |
