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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Gilder who wrote (1941)	8/10/1999 10:36:00 AM
From: CMon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

George, with reference to my post #1907 on this thread, I was serious. GSTRF carries 3x the market cap your "paradigm company" table indicates you to have been using. You've had a triple. Congratulations. Now, at the proper $6 billion market cap, would you still call it cheap?

To: George Gilder who wrote (1941)	8/10/1999 10:14:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. De Paul	Respond to of 5853

Why would any monopoly not gouge? Just look at past monopolies and what they have done. Maybe the analogy could be drawn even closer to Armstrong in his not opening up his cable properties too?

To: George Gilder who wrote (1941)	8/11/1999 12:01:00 PM
From: Sophie Janne	Respond to of 5853

Mr. Gilder, were you referring to the renaming of inTelecast to Novitera when you wrote in the August GTR, "heck, you can't even hide the name of a new paradigm company from the Yahoos and Raging Bulls for more than three minutes"? Whether yes or no, what are your general thoughts on Novitera? Will Novitera meet your standards for a paradigm shifting technology in the Telecosm? It doesn't appear that there is another competitor out there which can offer the broadcasters the same service. Thanks. Regards, Sophie

To: George Gilder who wrote (1941)	8/11/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: Robert Sheldon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5853

George, What about High Speed Access (HSAC)? It has nothing to do with content but everything to do with conduit . . . when are they going to blessed with a write-up at GTR? Robert

To: George Gilder who wrote (1941)	8/13/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: Richard H.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

George, any validity to Motorola's claim? SCHAUMBURG, Ill. (Reuters) - Motorola Inc. (NYSE:MOT - news) said Friday it filed counterclaims against Qualcomm Inc. (Nasdaq:QCOM - news), alleging that the California wireless communications company violated some provisions of licensing agreements between the companies. The counterclaim relates to lawsuits between the two pending in the United States District court for the Southern District of California, in San Diego. In this action, semiconductor and communications equipment maker Motorola claims that Qualcomm breached two key clauses of the 1990 agreements, the ``most favored nations' and royalty sharing provisions. In the agreements, the parties cross-licensed some intellectual property rights and agreed to work together to develop and commercialize CDMA technology. CDMA is digital mobile phone technology which promises clearer calls and fewer dropped calls. Qualcomm said it believes it has fulfilled its part of the agreement. ``We are very confident that we have fully complied with our contractual obligations and we believe this countersuit is more posturing on Motorola's part,' said Julie Cunningham, vice president of investor relations at Qualcomm. Motorola said it agreed to, and did in fact, invest substantial sums in Qualcomm's development of the CDMA technology and made Motorola's technology available to Qualcomm. Qualcomm agreed in return to give Motorola favorable licensing treatment and royalty sharing rights, to secure for Motorola an advantage in the CDMA marketplace over later licensees. Motorola said it believes its contributions played an important role in the success of CDMA technology. But Motorola charged Qualcomm has embarked upon a licensing strategy designed to deprive Motorola of the bargained-for benefits in the agreements. THANK YOU