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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2658)	11/8/1999 9:14:00 AM
From: Mr.Fun	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 34857

I had to jump in here to give Tero some support. 1. QCOM's IPR rights vis a vis W-CDMA - This is the crux of the issue, and the answer is unknowable until it goes to court. QCOM steadfastly maintains that its patents over such things as soft handoff and its rake receiver are unassailable. TI, MOT, NOK, DSP, LSI etc. insist that QCOM's patents do not cover W-CDMA and that no license is necessary. Obviously, one (or both) of these positions is wrong, and I fear the answer will be determined by legal processes. I have not seen any analyst who can even frame the questions adequately. We need a top-notch patent lawyer and an unbiased RF engineer to give us some insight. Until then, "QCOM is unstoppable because Dr. J says so" and "NOK will never pay for 3G licenses" is just talk. 2. Do not think that Ericsson is QCOMs friend just because they bought the infrastructure business and agreed to cross license patents. ERIC maintains that its patents on W-CDMA are just as important as QCOMs and that it believes the IPR dollar flow will be essentially even. A contact at ERIC insists that the W-CDMA standard was set specifically to minimize the exposure to QCOMs patents and that there are ways around them. Now before anyone jumps down my throat on this one, see point #1 which applies to this as well. 3. At the end, NOK will be pragmatic and if there is business advantage to capitulating on the QCOM IPR issue, they will. Note the agreement to license PalmOS after being a vocal champion of EPOCH. Indeed, if it were an advantage, and I don't think it will be, NOK would even buy chipsets from QCOM. 4. CDMA is a better 2G technology than GSM, but it doesn't matter. The facts are clear that GSM is four times the size of CDM and growing faster now (largely because US technology confusion and cheap wireline rates have retarded penetration - the US blew it almost as badly as the Japanese). I'm sure Tero can write more eloquently than I of the penetration growth in Europe and China. However, it is not out of the question that CDMA can put on a growth spurt and out grow GSM. It really depends on the carriers to execute, and has little to do with the relative merits of the two different 2G technologies. 5. Handset vendors who think 3G is a clean slate for them to get back in the game are sorely mistaken. 3G networks will not have the coverage of 2G for many, many years - so 3G phones will have to support 2G technology. This means: Multi-band, multi-mode phones for the foreseeable future. Japanese manufacturers, with their incompatible PDC technology will be screwed again. Nokia wins.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2658)	11/8/1999 11:47:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

We can argue until the cows come home what the IPR situation is, who gets licensing fees and how much. But the fact is - nobody knows the precise numbers at this stage. If bux or somebody else has found information detailing the agreed W-CDMA licensing fees to companies holding intellectual property - post it here. Just the facts. 1. W-CDMA is not even finalized yet. 2. I think all agree that mobile CDMA (wide or narrow) can not be commercialized without using Qualcomm IPR. 3. Qualcomm will charge for the use of one patent or 100 patents equally. Qualcomm management has never wavered on this. 4. If the markets are free and open markets Qualcomm has the right to charge any amount they like for things they own. 5. If the European standards bodies don't like it, they can choose to not use Qualcomm IPR. This would mean trying to live with TDMA based technologies into the 21st century. The standards bodies have no real power, just influence, and even that is dwindling. 6. And this is the crux. If even one European operator wants to use CDMA2000 to compete with EDGE (snicker) or GPRS (more snickers) and the agencies that control the spectrum refuse, the U.S. will apply pressure to open the markets to U.S. products. If still refused, a full blown trade war will occur. That is in no ones best interest. Countries around the world that are now predominantly GSM will eventually choose the superior CDMA and Europe will lose status, profitability and influence. No, we don't know what the exact fees will be. But Qualcomm is in a very, very strong position here and considering the many years, dollars and the time that some of the worlds brightest mathematicians, physicists and engineers at Qualcomm dedicated to perfecting CDMA techniques, a period when lesser brains were saying it couldn't be done, it violated the rules of physics, I think Qualcomm's position is very reasonable. Bux