Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (485)	8/3/1999 7:29:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

I am hopelessly confused as to who is who in that juicy paragraph with the word "licensees." Licensees of Qualcomm, or of that group including VLSI, or of MOT and Lucent ? Maybe this is part of what is keeping the lawyers busy ? Jon.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (485)	8/3/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Clark: Since learned that MOT can sell chips to others under license, edited out of my post the sentence you quote. Understand you are correct on that point. Now the key question is the one you raise, i.e.whether MOT can, unlike other chip suppliers such as DSP Com or LSI Logic, sell chips without repeat without any payment to the Q on each chip sold. And perhaps this is the nub of the lawsuit just brought by the Q against MOT. To pay or not to pay, that is the question. Hope someone can clarify. Chaz

To: Clarksterh who wrote (485)	8/3/1999 7:40:00 PM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Clark that is incorrect. As per a conversation with Gregg, he told me that MOT paid the same royalty as everyone else.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (485)	8/3/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: SKIP PAUL	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 13582

Under the terms of their agreements, Motorola and Lucent also have the right to manufacture and sell CDMA ASICs of their own design to licensees. Note that there is an implication, although not an absolute statement, that if Motorola or Lucent make ASICs they owe no royalties to Qualcomm. Why on earth would QCOM issue such a license?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (485)	8/3/1999 10:07:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

I do not get the same idea from that paragraph in the 10-K as you do. Motorola and Lucent are not getting a free ride with no royalties owed. That is not a possibility. Also, remember that MOT bought the remains of LU's handset division, including the engineers. This is likely the fruit of that acquisition. I have pointed out this fact about MOT and LU being able to sell their ASICs a number of times. It has been in the SEC filings for some time. It should not come as a surprise to anyone. Is it worth a $2 billion loss in market cap for QCOM? I don't think so. QCOM is the leader in advanced ASICs and software/support to back them up. Bring on the competition.