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: Bux who wrote (2667)	11/8/1999 12:38:00 PM
From: Mika Kukkanen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34857

Bux: A nice display of the old qcom centric view, however one point reinforces what many within the industry think. To quote an earlier post of yours, "I was under the impression that by now we would know whether Irwin Jacobs and his Q gang were snakeoil salesman or brilliant visionaries." Take a look at point 4. >1. W-CDMA is not even finalized yet. Well, most of it is now. >2. I think all agree that mobile CDMA (wide or narrow) can not be >commercialized without using Qualcomm IPR. True, that is what happened with Ericsson. Qcom hold a few annoying IPRs with this regard. >3. Qualcomm will charge for the use of one patent or 100 patents >equally. Qualcomm management has never wavered on this. Naturally. >4. If the markets are free and open markets Qualcomm has the right >to charge any amount they like for things they own. Unfortunately true, but this is not how most of the telecom industry has worked in the past as it promotes higher costs which leads to slower roll-out of services (who would that be good for apart from lining pockets which surely is a short-term view?). Please note, Motorola has the highest number of GSM IPRs but we never confronted the crap we had last year. Qcom does not have the majority of IPRs within WCDMA, now if everyone took the attitude of charging what they like then WCDMA just wouldn't happen...so be thankful others are not as greedy so that Qcom has access to a royalty stream! >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. Standards bodies also consists of the suppliers, so I think that you are wrong. However, any company could go it alone like in the software world...just ask Microsoft. Anyway, have you heard of EDGE2 yet? >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 who is being presumptuous? Lose status? The fact that GSM has been so succesful is for the same reason you mention that they will lose status! The US has not such a great influence anyway...we are talking standards and not free trade due to it being a US product. It's a bit like selling a Trabant in Los Angeles...just can't be done..but hey the Californian laws on low/zero car emission are stifling free trade. You get the drift. After all that, I think that within the whole of Europe (EU et al) there will be at least one going for cdmaOne to cdma2000. Right, this is the Nokia thread...wasn't it? Qcom are fast becoming a bit player in the telecom market. Good. They will receive royalty streams from it, but they will no longer dictate it or hold it to ransom as they have done. e-nuff venting from me. M