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: Bux who wrote (3067)	11/8/1999 10:42:00 PM
From: qdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

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. I'm not sure it is that simply. I suppose you could charge for the smart card, which holds the key to the IPR, but not the DSP itself, as it is pretty dumb without that key and capable of many things. See this is what bugs me, how does it playout in the legal space? 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. Bitter???? Not at all, then again you can always read into e-mail what you care to. I suppose that why there is varying opinions about a literary work, it's what the reader reads into it and extracts from it. I'm no different than I was then. I lamblasted Ericsson for their claims and patents with as much questioning as I'm questioning things today. My stance about 3G is and remains fairly consistent, where the frequency spectrum to accomplish it and satisfy the consumers expectation? Empirical evidence doesn't lead me down this road of higher and higher valuation based on what a manufacturer claims, but on what the operator will do with it, if at all. It maybe a rule and it maybe a standard, but there are plenty of rules and standards that don't make money. If it won't make money, then operators won't necessarily deploy it. If operators don't deploy it, then it won't make money for the manufacturer. If debate is food for thought, then that is all I'm doing. I don't view anything in one dimensional plane or from one side. I'm constantly questioning until I derive a conclusion, whether correct or not. If you are viewing my debates as bitter, then you are incorrect as I don't. When my anger is evident, I think it has been EXTREMELY evident. This message has to many if's and if is the middle word of life. With that, I'm signing off for awhile. Headed to drink some beers with a few friends on the 11th in DC and then to see mom for Thanksgiving. Off to Central America after that and debating presently if I want to spend the New Years there. Can't stand cold weather these days. Wonder if they make a fur treatment for dogs? So I wish everyone happy holidays and a Happy New Year (I won't say Millenium as I count from 1 and not 0). Catch ya next year.......