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: PAL who wrote (41634)	9/17/1999 11:28:00 AM
From: Cosmo Daisey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

High tech patents are typically renewed however Q* is constantly developing new technology and therefore new patents. That's what next generation technology is about, new patents. Visit your local BAM store and look at the booklet that comes with a Q* phone. There are about 200 patents listed and about 350 more applied for. cdaisey@sea-gulls-walkin-today.com

To: PAL who wrote (41634)	9/17/1999 11:29:00 AM
From: llwk7051@aol.com	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Pal, Most of Qualcomm early income was licensing. Now the source is patents. Qcom Patents do expire but Qcom is constantly adding new patents and licenses require royalty on whole package as I understand the arrangements. Thus, as long as they continue to develop key new patents you in effect have a perpetual royalty stream. Robert

To: PAL who wrote (41634)	9/17/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

No, not necessarily is the licensing based on patents. In this case Q was able to offer technology because of their patents however the licensing would say something like sign here and we'll get you into the most advanced digital technology there is, in return just pay us royalties forever for developing it. I see the chips (ASIC) as the long term stream along with the royalties. Q will advance this chip so far and so fast in the next 10 years (Moore's law), that they'll own the market. The licensing already covers other major chip makers for this technology, the risk is from an unlicensed chip maker getting into the business, by then cost and futher patents will make it prohibitive, as well as consumer demand. "Intel Inside" means something to you when buying a PC, their chip is not the same as 20 years ago, who want's to take them on now? "Digital by Qualcomm" will have the same impact. The royalty stream has a long way to go. Jim