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: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (3009)	11/7/1999 10:12:00 AM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Had these been posted before? chinaonline.com chinaonline.com By the way, before anyone supports or bashes China, this is a pretty good article to read for a little better understanding of the current situation. chinaonline.com Ramsey

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (3009)	11/7/1999 3:22:00 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

<If Q patents were gonna get beat, it would have happened before ericy capitulated.> On this note, and as a way thank the person most responsible for my staying in QCOM when I was advised to sell my position in early February, I post the following. From the January, 1999 Gilder Technology Report, beginning on page 7: QUALCOMM: "Meanwhile, as you may have all noticed, Qualcomm is provoking the usual clueless coverage in the press, which prompts queries galore to [The Gilder Group]. Is the company truly "desperate," as the Wall Street Journal opined? Can Ericsson and the EU truly capture the next generation of broadband wireless and swipe CDMA from Qualcomm merely by shuffling papers at standards bodies, repurposing old TDMA patents, and in general raising the noise level in wireless way above the signal? I gather you want to know. If you are a faithful reader of this Report, you grasp that in the end the best technologies, executed most competently, nearly always prevail." Gilder then goes on in a number of paragraphs to recount the history and current status of the IP/standards battle with the ITU, in the process debunking the arguments of the anti-Q forces. He concludes the piece with these two paragraphs. "Any way you cut it, the decision by ETSI, the European telecom standards body, to choose any kind of CDMA for the next generation of GSM is a huge victory for Qualcomm. The pretense that it's Ericcson's W-CDMA cannot conceal the Qualcomm concepts that make it possible: rake receivers, soft handoff, power control. The anti-competitive edict by the EU has been challenged by the US Government..... Hey, throw me into the briar patch! This is where Qualcomm has thrived for more than ten years. The only difference is that in the past the US State Department endorsed GSM as a standard, and Qualcomm was a tiny startup with no allies at all and few revenues. Nonetheless, the power of its CDMA and entrepreneurial boldness has made it a $3.3 billion company, quadrupling revenues over the last three years and prevailing against all the powers and principalities of the telecomm establishment. Generation 3? One way or another, a piece of cake." While the above speaks for itself, re-reading it reminded me of the importance of the Ericcson settlement. ERICY was the big kahuna in the fight against QCOM's IP and they have capitulated. Isn't this what Gregg Powers (and others) has been saying, the "fat lady has sung."

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (3009)	11/8/1999 8:54:00 PM
From: qdog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Once again, QCOM will be suing, not being sued. Let's take Nokia's announcement today about 3G. They are claiming that the first phones will not be global, but W-CDMA only. That hurdles will have to be overcome to produce a phone that will do both standards. This leads us to a Let's move from the rhetoric of manufacturer's to one of what the operators will decide. Manufacturer's, whether they are Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, Lucent, Motorola, Alcatel or whomever are in the business of selling product. In the process of selling that product, they have to convince it is a "can't miss moneymaker". Does that make their rhetoric correct? Half correct? Quarter correct? Wasn't Qualcomm early claim for CDMAOne to be 20X increase in voice capacity? Has that ever been achieved in the real world deployment? Didn't Ericsson suggest to us that CMDA would not work? So for me to just sit here and listen to the noise of manufacturers sales pitch and buy it hook, line and sinker, isn't going to happen for me. Now, having stated this, in the 3G world, just how many users globally will need a multifunctional phone? How many Europeans will need to pay Qualcomm tax, for something that they probably will use for 2 weeks every 5 to 10 years when they come to the US for vacation? How many US residents will pay an Ericsson tax, essentially for the same thing and for the same reasons? Not everyone globe trots for business purposes. Not ever one is a 6 continent traveller like Ramsey and Maurice (that is if they have manage to done that). How many vacationers want a phone that their boss can call to disrupt their vacation? How many people are that important. So why would an operator demand millions and millions of phones that cost is increased 5% for something that isn't going to be used. Sort of like having A/C in your car in Alaska, or rear window defrost feature in Brownsville. So now this is where my point comes; if manufacturers are told that they don't want phones with multiple features to reduce the cost, what will QCOM response be? Everyone is assuming that Ericsson settlement is about capitulation to the fact that QCOM has all rights to CDMA, they don't. They didn't invent it either, US Army holds the original patent for wireless cellular CDMA. 1.25 MHz channel was a patent by none other than Phillips. Yet, if the operators, and this is a speculated IF, demand of manufacturers to design one mode phones, they are going to assend to that demand. This leads me to another point about something Motorola direction could lead. What if I build a DSP that can be reprogrammed or with a smart card, change from CDMA 2000 to W-CDMA? How do you charge an IPR for that? Do you charge a rental fee directly to Ericsson or Qualcomm? Now we have my really favorite argument, which is where is all this frequency spectrum going to come from to accomplish 2 Mb? Germany's operators are squacking about government's recent allocation, declaring it DOA as far as 2 Mb capable. Bell Atlantic and Bell South have both in trade mag's stated that they will need more frequency spectrum to accomplish 3G. Where is it? What to prevent the Wireless LAN crowd to jump the gun with 11 MBps Ethernet's to complete with this standard? As we have talked about MCOM, they are deploying a system that will do 128 or 144 KBps today. So far we hear what the manufacturer's are pushing, but are people carefully listening to the operators? These guys have technologist that are capable of independent thought and CFO's that will peg what will be spent to generate a profitable return to satisfy their shareholders, regardless of silked suited, lizard skin tassled loafer sales pitches, no matter where they come from.