SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Kayaker who wrote (40338)9/10/1999 10:36:00 AM
From: waverider  Respond to of 152472
 
Bob that's why there are two threads. It's ok to have fun if we want here...then we can sober up in the morning and read the other. Cool?

Good Luck
Rick
<H>



To: Kayaker who wrote (40338)9/10/1999 6:05:00 PM
From: MileHigh  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 152472
 
The more I learn about Q the more I realize how it faces similar issues and obstacles as RMBS.

RE the attached article, whenever a IP company holds the rights to a particular technology standard or architecture (Q= CDMA; RMBS= RDRAM), there is always a groundswell of support from the competing companies to deploy a new standard that is open and requires no royalty payment.

RMBS is not loved at all by MU, NEC, etc due to their IP lock on RDRAM, thus having to pay a royalty. I am not sure how QCOM's relationships are with T, BellSouth, Nokia, Sprint and other carries. Could someone discuss how these carriers and handset suppliers view Q? Is there a lot of animosity? A little? Or none?

One just hates to have a whole industry out there banding together to try and come up with a free superior technology or architecture. I know it is a very real issue for RMBS, as soon as a better DRAM mousetrap is built and it is free, then they might be in trouble.

Perhaps someone could discuss how this issue plays out in the wireless world? Meaning, is Q loved or hated due to having the lock!?

TIA~

MileHigh