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: Bill Dalglish who wrote (46903)	11/1/1999 6:47:00 PM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Bill what you offer is sure and simple propaganda. When you reduce Qcoms patent portfolio in a rhetorical way as PR, and marketing, you iligitimize any arguments you might have. Though I am not the most well written on this thread, I have seen this argument thrown arround for 2 years. I will respond to your so called arguments. 1) ERICY ALREADY HAS AGREED TO PAY EQUAL ROYALTIES FOR WCDMA AND CDMA2000. What on earth dont you understand about that? 2)QCOM management has gone on record on numerous occasions stating that QCOM'S patents are esential. 3)ATI/VODA/GTE will go CDMA2000 nomatter what because it is a much cheaper upgrade then WCDMA. The CEO of ATI has also gone on record saying this. 4)Any Is95 system will go CDMA2000. Why? Because its the cheapest path. That includes the current Japenese, Korean, Latin American and US carriers. That market alone is substantial enough to drive Q earnings for years to come(if anything you say is correct, and WCDMA is non royalty paying) 5)CDMA2000 will be available way ahead of WCDMA. Why? Because WCDMA hasnt really been created yet. They still have to try to engineer around Q. This will take years. Heck MOT and NOK still cant seem to get ASIC's to work, how on earth will they re-engineer softhandoff? 6)Qcom has been as straight as any corporation I have ever dealt with. Their PR, and marketing departement are tame compared to ERICY, AND MOT. Trying to make them out to be the wizards of media is a joke. In closing you may sway newbies with your nonsense, but the veterans here have seen many brighter and sharper posts try to discredit Qcom's patent portfolio.

To: Bill Dalglish who wrote (46903)	11/1/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Jill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Bill, SI does not allow posters to plug their websites/newsletters. Your membership could be permanently revoked if you are not careful (a few complaints from other members would be enough). In addition, your webpage, which I glanced at, clearly promotes Interdigital. This is fairly tasteless, and one of us should probably write the webmistress. Jill

To: Bill Dalglish who wrote (46903)	11/1/1999 8:50:00 PM
From: Boplicity	Respond to of 152472

ot ot ot bill you are spaming. please stop. Greg

To: Bill Dalglish who wrote (46903)	11/1/1999 9:05:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I sense the ultimate question of QCOM's future profits from CDMA will not revolve around whose technology is objectiely superior (we could argue that forever), but whether QCOM with its CDMA2000 can outfox Ericsson and Nokia with their W-CDMA in marketing third generation wireless products to the world. Bill, MarginMike has already done a good job pointing out the major misconceptions and errors in your amazingly naive post (not trying to flame you, just being bluntly honest), but your 3G world view is so distorted I feel the need to add a couple of things. You keep referring to W-CDMA as Ericsson's and Nokia's as if they own that technology. They do not. W-CDMA contains QCOM technology right to the core. W-CDMA is not how QCOM would choose to implement 3G CDMA, that's why they have CDMA2000. If Qualcomm desired, they could have stopped W-CDMA dead in it's tracks by refusing to license their IPR but they decided to allow W-CDMA to go forward and collect the same royalties from it that they receive for the other mobile CDMA standards. Why don't you understand this? As far as your favorite stock, IDC, receiving 3G royalties, I doubt it will amount to much, if anything. If IDC does get significant 3G royalties, we might actually see IDC shares trading above the price of 14 years ago. This stock desperately needs something to happen or else it will be one of the few companies to be stuck in the same range for 14 years. Something tells me these IPR claims are just another act of desperation but I just don't know. Somehow, I am just not worried enough to want to dilute my Q shares by buying inferior companies. Your post seems to indicate IDC IPR is applicable to W-CDMA, not CDMA 2000. If that is true, it is just one more reason for CDMA2000 to become the dominant standard since W-CDMA networks would have to pay Qualcomm the usual amount plus any royalties they might owe to IDC, ERICY and NOK and possibly others. Bux

To: Bill Dalglish who wrote (46903)	11/1/1999 11:12:00 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Bill, you seem like an intelligent guy with a severe handicap how can a company outside the CDMA space market its way out of a box limited by laws of physics? wait until data starts traveling across wireless airwaves wait until subscribership grows to the point that frequencies run too close and calls get dropped faster than subscriptions to your newsletter wait until GSM and TDMA hit a brick wall who gives a shit about 1/2 cost when your wireless system fails upon high demand of user count or data flow? after serious consideration of your main points, and your blatant attempt to solicit, and furthermore, at the risk of sounding personal, gotta say: you are a dork / Jim