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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/19/1999 9:29:00 AM
From: NAGINDAS J.O.PATTNI	Respond to of 34857

tero you're forgetting somethinghs. MY PARTNER MALKO KEEP ON TELLING THAT TO ME,"NOK HAVE AVAILABLE THE ASICS OF IDC! QUADRIMODE 2 YEARS IN ADVANCE OF QCOM, WHO OPERATE IN ANY ENVIRONMENT!" I REPORTED HIS FRASE ,HE THINKS QCOM OBSOLETE. nagin

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/19/1999 9:54:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 34857

Tero: You are expert in many facets of wireless delivery systems - with an emphasis on handsets. Many people respect and value your views. In this context a statement such as this one: "There are few if any signs in Qualcomm's recent history of real innovation and insight." seem odd. Qualcomm is an R&D powerhouse with patents applied for and issued on a wide range of cutting edge improvements in the application of CDMA in many fields related to wireless. And new products, software and ASIC improvements emerge frequently and regularly currently. Innovation is the Q's particular strength by any objective evidence. What do you mean? Chaz

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/19/1999 10:25:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Respond to of 34857

Tero: It would be nice if you occasionally attempted to understand the facts before posting nonsense. Qualcomm did not arbitrarily terminate the VLSI license. VLSI signed an agreement with Qualcomm that incorporated a change of control provision, i.e. if VLSI is acquired, then the license can be nullified. VLSI was acquired and, after negotiations of undisclosed substance, Qualcomm opted to exercise its rights under its license agreement. I am sorry that you feel Qualcomm acted in a non-philanthropic fashion. As a Qualcomm shareholder, however, I am delighted that management acted to protect my interests. I am also sorry that you live in a fantasyworld where business is conducted according to semi-socialist, make-them-up-as-you-go rules. Cheers! Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/19/1999 10:29:00 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 34857

Tero, re: QCOM's being headed for the toilet like IRID--isn't it a little ironic that you choose a top-heavy TDMA loser like IRID as a comparison to the Q!'s newly leavened fabless IPR powerhouse? Down here in Hicksville, we call that a bait-and-switch! Works well for product liability lawyers talking to illiterate juries, but from what I can tell, the jury is still OUT to a LONG LUNCH inre: QC's demise! VLSI, you might have noted, is having their license pulled since they are getting bought out by a much larger manufacturer--perhaps prelude to a renegotiation of terms? In any case, obviously the sort of eventuality now obtaining in VLSI's case was anticipated in its licensing contract, and QCOM is simply exercising that right. Pray tell, where is the duplicity in them thar bones? Also, surfing the web, picked up the following comments on your post from Yahoo: Is Tero worth responding to? by: Explorer_at_large (36/M/Southwest) 38447 of 38447 Let's face it, Tero has been spewing negative spin on Qualcomm since the stock was $15. The fact that Qualcomm doesn't manufacture the ASICs, the fact that ASICs are, in fact, a commercialized extension of the basic IPR, the fact that handsets are, in fact, little pieces of plastic, a battery, a keyboard, a LCD and...voila...ASICs/software....these facts are known to Tero, but he chooses to ignore them. Tero better spend less time castigating Qualcomm and more time worrying about his precious Nokia. Let's face it, it's unclear whether Nokia is a manufacturing wonderkind or whether it has simply exploited the incompetence of its competition in the closed TDMA-based GSM universe. It's ironic that Tero should claim that Qualcomm has stifled competition, when the opposite is true. Qualcomm licensed the devils incarnate....the Japan and the Koreans....to 'do' CDMA. The principal TDMA-based universe is far less expansive, principally limited to Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola (with a big gap down for everybody else). With the Japanese now in the game, and the Koreans well along the curve, Nokia will face a degree of competition in 3G, i.e. CDMA-based technologies, that simply did not exist in TDMA-based GSM land. As a consequence, we will find out just who well our Finnish friends can defy gravity when they run headlong into fierce and well-financed competition...particularly while sputtering with a defective chipset. Given this dynamic, is it any wonder that the European equipment companies hate Qualcomm? Tero is entitled to his opinion. It's been a rather expensive perspective over the last twelve months given the relative performance of the two equities. I suspect if my thesis is correct, Tero's biases will become far more expensive over the next couple of years. But what do I know?? EAL

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/19/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

It's not like Q can actually offer any unique technology. The most succesful high-end CDMA phones in USA are now Startac, 6185 and Touchpoint, only one of which uses a Qualcomm chipset. So much for the Intel scenario Hmm...When I asked this question two weeks ago your response centered on the fact that Qualcomm was a competitor in the handset division. Now it is because they do not have a competitive enough chipset. A couple of questions.... 1) Has the 6185 been approved for use by BAM or PrimeCo? 2) Does the 6185 support IS-95B....basically data rates upto 64kbps? 3) Is Nokia selling any CDMA phones in Korea or Japan? 4) Will they have chipsets that support 1xrtt by next year? If the answers to all of those questions are no (I'm not positive that they are all true).....Then you should forget about Qualcomm and any antagonism they have created. The central point is this....Nokia is missing a market. I get worried when companies do things that shoot themselves in the foot to simply prove a point. I could go on....but I dont think it will be productive. Nokia will either offer a competitive CDMA phone or they wont....the sales numbers next year will reflect their decisions. Slacker

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/19/1999 8:34:00 PM
From: NAGINDAS J.O.PATTNI	Respond to of 34857

funny "barons" think the future is GSM like i do. nagin

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/19/1999 11:51:00 PM
From: Kayaker	Respond to of 34857

Qualcomm is in the process of destroying the CDMA chipset market by attempting to turn it into its monopoly. VLSI becomes a dangerous competitor... and Qualcomm simply yanks their CDMA license. "Already a major force in the GSM cellular arena, Philips will harness VLSI's chipset technology to catapult into the market for CDMA (code-division multiple access), which is seen as the next cellular standard to spur growth in emerging markets, such as China. Contrary to a report in last week's EBN, a decision by Qualcomm Inc. to terminate VLSI's license to key CDMA patents will not be a barrier to Philips' wireless thrust, the company now claims. In fact, Qualcomm and Philips expect to ink a new license agreement in due time, both parties confirmed late last week....Both companies downplayed the issue, however, noting that it's common practice when a license holder is acquired to draw up a new pact with the buyer. In a joint statement last week, Qualcomm and Philips said ongoing discussions should yield a new license that will allow Philips to continue to develop and market CDMA chipsets without disruption." beta.siliconinvestor.com

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/20/1999 12:38:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

. Qualcomm is in the process of destroying the CDMA chipset market by attempting to turn it into its monopoly. VLSI becomes a dangerous competitor... and Qualcomm simply yanks their CDMA license. Is this a wise way to run a standard? By bullying and strangling competition? Tero, please. Get a grip. I think you are losing it. The most succesful high-end CDMA phones in USA are now Startac, 6185 and Touchpoint, only one of which uses a Qualcomm chipset. So that's 50% of the high-end (minor) handset market that QCOM supplies the chips for and 100% of that market that QCOM collects CDMA royalties on. You must not consider the Thinphone high-end, I think you will find it is outselling either of these two phones. I'm having a hard time understanding that a Finn has to explain these principles to Americans, but here goes: I believe in free competition and open standards. I believe in Darwinian jungle of intense rivalry as the best guarantee of technological advances. I believe in companies that thrive under intense pressure. I'm not too impressed by hothouse flowers that are going out of their way to avoid direct competition. Stagnation is a child of seclusion. Now that you have brought up the anti-competitive and protectionistic behavior of the GSM camp, I must agree. . Many investors think that tripling share price in a matter of weeks is a sure sign that the company is on right track. Of course it isn't. It can reflect a variety of things. Including skills in snakeoil salesmanship. Oh, please. Are you still going there? You are making a fool of yourself and you can't even see it. . There are few if any signs in Qualcomm's recent history of real innovation and insight. The Q version of "vision" is a big bet on satellite telephones. Let's see how they intend to walk away from Globalstar without a dent in profit growth. My, don't we sound bitter. Actually, Globalstar will neither make or break QCOM's future. So, you are concluding with QCOM receiving a possible "dent" in their earnings GROWTH from a G* failure? Oh, I'm real scared. I guess I better sell my QCOM while I'm ahead. He He he I'm not sure why I'm responding except possibly if I had listened to your demented veiws this spring my portfolio would not be worth 5x it's value in Jan. Now you claim you were right all along no matter what the share price is now! Bux

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/20/1999 7:08:00 AM
From: brian h	Respond to of 34857

Tero, In light of Bux's statements to you, I will join here to write """""""""""What the hell are you talking down about my beloved companies again with your track records?""""""""""" Brian H.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2225)	9/20/1999 7:39:00 AM
From: brian h	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Tero, -continued- PS. Please stand some heats from your own statements also if you can! PS. My in-laws brought their so called "world phone" GSM model with them to our east coast trip just about two weeks ago. Father-in-law turned it on while we were at Longwood Garden just about 45 minutes out of US Highway 95 (a major east coast highway). No reception what so ever. The phone was on to look for any signal. He did not get any until we reached about 15 minutes range within US 95. Then he saw Omnipoint sign shows. Amazingly, the 280 hours standby time for so called GSM "world phone" had dropped from a full charged status to a 1/4 of its remaining stand-by sign. You bet how my father in law feels about a GSM world phone now. A scam! Of course, He is an average cell user who wants his cell phone works everywhere as you like to describe in your dreamed GSM world. Yeah. So much for GSM world phone dreams vs. the stand-by time of G* phone. And all that switchings between 900 MHZ vs. 1800 MHZ vs. AMPS do not use up your dreamed GSM world phone's stand-by time. Prove it! Brian H