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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gdichaz who wrote (238)	9/20/1999 4:27:00 PM
From: qdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12253

Flat out wrong? Is that a fact? It gives a history up to that point in time and it is very much on the mark except the update to the Ericsson and Qualcomm fued. The fact is, the ITU still has a bunch of standards before it and nothing is settled, irregardless what you would like to believe and irregardless of the propoganda. If you "know" otherwise then post your "facts". As I had time, I went through some old bookmarks and post them for the guy that asked plus I'm not finnished. So hold your 'tude in check, until I'm finnished.

To: gdichaz who wrote (238)	9/20/1999 6:39:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12253

Chaz, << Wireless Week article is of what date? >> The article was published late October 1998, a few weeks after Kennard's speech to the referenced ITU Conference (10/13/98). Caron Carlson's "An Introduction to 3G: Third Gen: What's Behind The Ballyhoo?" cited by qdog seems to me to be to be a pretty good place to start to catch up on the 3G issues that resulted in the Q/Ericy settlement 5 months later. I've firnished the link to others, often. << Much of the info in the article is flat out wrong >> Could you expand on this? I had always thought that this article (and others by Caron Carlson) was reasonably accurate and reasonably balanced. - Eric -