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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37705)	8/5/1999 10:05:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice - OT What a rant! Bravo! In answer to An area of monopoly I'm not touching here is patent power, which is state power backing individual creativity and ownership of that creativity. That's a more tricky area. You've thought more about it than I have and in that area I think you back the monopoly power? Yes? I'm not clear in my mind about that. Its not monopolies that I'm against, it's abuse of their power (this, BTW, is also the position of the US government. Thus is Qualcomm, Intel, ... safe). So you are right, I have no objection to patents, especially since by statute they are inherently time limited and have anti-abuse portions. In conclusion, you and I differ. I think the world, including shareholders, is much better off without the old Ma Bell, and I think software would be better off without Bill's abusive monopoly. (Note that if he hadn't abused it, I would be a defender of Bill even though I think that, as a monopoly, Bill's OS is both overpriced and poorly written. But he 'earned' his monopoly status and therefore has a right to it unless he abuses it.) Clark