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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: qdog who wrote (2962)	11/4/1999 7:48:00 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

In the end, I agree that avoiding lawsuits is the best possible outcome all the way around. And since QCOm has the most to gain by things working out without legal trouble, they by definition have the most (opportunity) to lose if things are slowed down for any reason. See my previous post re: what if NOK was buyer of handset division.

To: qdog who wrote (2962)	11/4/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

ATT went with a safe bet, haha. Sprint went with the tech, got 100BB buyout, biggest ever. the thing about fud is it's an infinite regression: you can say concern over suits creates concern among operators, which creates concern among investors, etc. but somebody will cut through the noise and say, Give the people what they want.

To: qdog who wrote (2962)	11/4/1999 8:17:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

What I'm concern with is what operators will be thinking about all of this as far as the selection process is concern. Go with something that turns into a legal morass or go with the safe play. Qdog, I disagree that Cfoent is off base and you appear to support his views with your example. First, Allow me to clarify that I agree lawsuits are a negative when considering shareholder value. Of course sometimes they are a necessary evil in order to increase shareholder value. Your statement that Cfoent is off-base seems to imply that QCOM shareholders should be concerned that lawsuits will delay CDMA deployments. While anything is possible, I think it is pretty obvious that the agreement between QCOM and Ericy earlier this year include language that will allow W-CDMA and CDMA2000 to be deployed without legal problems between these two parties. Yes, there could still be claims from other companies but don't you think they would have come forward before now considering the ITU has been working on 3G for some time now? Yes, there is Wi-Lan, but, as far as I know, they have only claimed W-CDMA IPR. If W-CDMA requires this additional royalty, then CDMA2000 has the lower royalty rate and QCOM benefits either way. If you are thinking Europe may pass on CDMA in favor of GSM based technologies because of lawsuits, I would point out that if CDMA2000 does not trigger significant royalties from non-QCOM companies, then W-CDMA can be modified to avoid those non-QCOM royalties also. Besides, an upgrade path exists from GSM to CDMA2000. Bux