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 (3058)	11/8/1999 9:30:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Wasn't Qualcomm early claim for CDMAOne to be 20X increase in voice capacity? Has that ever been achieved in the real world deployment? Interesting that you should mention that today. Irwin Jacobs (during the HDR presentation today) said the easy upgrade to 1XRTT allow voice capacity of double IS-95 or to 20X AMPS. Bux

To: qdog who wrote (3058)	11/8/1999 9:46:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

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? Qdog, that's easy. If the device needs to use Q IPR then Q has the right to charge a royalty on the price of the device. If the device uses Ericy IPR that is not incorporated into one of the CDMA modes of the device than Ericy has the right to charge a royalty since presumably, the pass through royalty that Ericy has granted Q would not apply. Qdog, just today I was thinking about my early investment in QCOM and how I came to invest. I thought back to my early days on the "Coming into buy range" Q thread and realized that you were one of the early people that provided information and helped me form a positive opinion of QCOM. Now, you sound so bitter, so negative and even to the point of sounding less than sane (sometimes), I have to wonder if you sold your early investment in Q and this has caused your bitterness. I know it's none of my business and I am not even asking you if this is so. I am just amazed at what a different person you have become over two short years. Bux

To: qdog who wrote (3058)	11/10/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 13582

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 Just trying to catch up here.. Seems to me that here and on the Nokia thread we're revisiting the same old territory from before the Ericsson "settlement", as if precious little or nothing at all was really settled. After spending the last couple of days running these arguments around in my head I've come to the conclusion that none of this stuff makes any sense, unless of course one believes that Q was snookered or forced to capitulate by Ericsson. This idea is pretty hard to swallow, not because I don't like it but because it just doesn't make any sense. First of all Jacobs and all would have to be liars, which is essentially what Tero infers when he makes his arguments about IPR. Mr Fun too, who as far as I can tell is a very knowledgable poster, has sources at Ericsson who claim that WCDMA was "designed" to get around Q IPR... duh.. but again.. what about the settlement? Royalty rates will be "essentially" the same across all CDMA standards..Was QCOM duped?.. I doubt it very much.. Will royalty rates really end up at the recently divulged 5%? WHo knows..maybe not. WIll they be 1%? I doubt it.. Hope this hasn't all been said already.. OUt 2 days and 120 posts behind...on THIS THREAD...almost as unreal as the stock price..