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: w molloy who wrote (1390)	9/10/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Hola W- What's the reasoning behind #2? Caxton

To: w molloy who wrote (1390)	9/11/1999 11:14:00 PM
From: idler	Respond to of 13582

w molloy: thanks for your interesting and informative post. Your second point offers a technical explanation that is glaringly lacking in the EE times article -- and that it would be very interesting to hear further elaboration from you on. However, I must disagree with your statement that the writer does not imply that lower cost from other suppliers is not due at least in part to no need for them to pay royalties to Q. There is an implied parallelism in the sentence that manufacturers can switch from Q, "which owns key patents on CDMA," to other suppliers -- the implication is, "who do not own such patents." But you may be right that in that this may not be the writer's intention; it may just be sloppy writing. Regards, idler.