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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (19917)	9/11/1999 5:14:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 25814

Tony, I haven't had time to wade thru all of the Q thread. But I'm sure it's been discussed. I'll go see what I can dig up. Why Q revoked the VLSI license is perplexing to me since Q gets royalty payments. bp

To: Tony Viola who wrote (19917)	9/11/1999 5:42:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Tony, Check this out from the Q thread, doesn't shed a whole lot of light, but raises the same question.. Message 11219773

To: Tony Viola who wrote (19917)	9/11/1999 6:58:00 PM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Tony: The issue of how QCOM was able to terminate its license to VLSI/Phillips lies in the following quote, which is taken from a must read article on CDMA that is linked below: ô[Philips/VSLI] no longer has a license,ö said a spokeswoman for Qualcomm, San Diego. ôBecause VLSI was acquired by Philips, VLSI is no longer granted a licenseö for the chipset technology, she said. The Qualcomm spokeswoman explained that the terms of the original licensing deal changed after Philips acquired VLSI last June for about $1 billion. She declined to say when the agreement was terminated, but noted that Philips still has the opportunity to participate in the CDMA-based chipset market if and only if the Dutch-based company renegotiates a new contract with Qualcomm. Message 11219206 Thus, LSI is not in any immediate threat of losing its license, but this issue should be kept in mind when one is thinking of any potential takeover premium of LSI, since it would appear that such a takeover would obviate the CDMA license that LSI currently holds. What I find interesting is the fact that the above article clearly suggests an exploding market for CDMA with ample room for a second major player. That player will come from one of four candidates—Motorola (never bet on my fellow NU alum Chris Galvin, who would be better off running a junior high school), DSP Communications, Prairie Comm and Nokia. Of these four, Motorola and Nokia are competing only as their own OEM suppliers. Thus, it would appear that in the independent market for CDMA, LSI has only two competitors to become the number two supplier next to QCOM. Thus rather than being bad news for LSI, this news is very good news. Having said that though, these gains may be chimerical, since it appears that what this termination is really about is renegotiating a better

To: Tony Viola who wrote (19917)	9/14/1999 1:56:00 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 25814

On Q and VLSI CDMA license: Hi, Tony. I am a regular contributor to the Q thread and lurk here occasionally as I have a modest position in LSI since last Fall, happy where we are. On Q and VLSI, Jock's post is on target and I would agree that Q's action vis a vis Phillips acquisition is good for LSI. Most IPR license agreements contain a "change of control" clause which, depending on how drafted, either gives the Licensor the right to terminate or makes the continuation of the license, in the event of a change in control, subject to the licensor's consent. Hope this adds to Jock's post. Regards. Steven

To: Tony Viola who wrote (19917)	9/14/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Breakout baby!!!!!!! Yeah! bp