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: JGoren who wrote (3015)	11/7/1999 11:35:00 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 13582

Wireless Week report on FCC oral argument in Second Circuit appeal of NextWave bankruptcy case: wirelessweek.com Wireless Week article on Sprint's wireless web service: wirelessweek.com

To: JGoren who wrote (3015)	11/7/1999 7:21:00 PM
From: Boplicity	Respond to of 13582

Thanks why I feel MSFT will have to pay a fine to netscape stock holders and not be split up. Greg

To: JGoren who wrote (3015)	11/8/1999 1:07:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

The government always wants to preserve what was rather than look forward to what will be. This is my major concern, especially since softie's "monopoly" is rapidly fading. While it may be true that Microsoft's is not gaining ground as fast as it used to, neither is it clear why that is. I strongly suspect that is largely a result of the fact that the government was looking over their shoulder, and they had to tone down their tactics. (If you think that Gates couldn't, for instance, squash Linux if unencumbered, I contend you are naive.) As for Qualcomm, I am not at all worried that somehow this is going to carry over to them. The only way that would happen is if Qualcomm started manufacturing cell phone batteries (for instance) and told all license holders they couldn't use their IPR anymore unless they bought their batteries from Qualcomm. As I've said before, the issue isn't monopoly, but abuse of monopoly power. Clark PS I'll move any further discussion on this over to the original board.