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: Maurice Winn who wrote (2693)	11/11/1999 4:43:00 PM
From: Bux	Respond to of 34857

Your response to Mr. Fun was very charitable and maybe educational too. Of course, that depends. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Something tells me we have a lot of really thirsty horses in these parts. And there's lots of water lying around too. Bux

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2693)	11/11/1999 9:16:00 PM
From: Mr.Fun	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34857

Maurice, You still haven't convinced me that Q's IPR rights are knowable. I actually talked to several senior people from Eric in Geneva and discussed this specific topic. ERIC actually feels that there are ways around the Q patents, but that it will take a couple years that they didn't want to give up to develop the alternatives and fight it out in court. Since Eric feels its patents are as valuable as Q's vis a vis W-CDMA, better to settle up lest the battle slow down adoption. Nonetheless, they CLAIMED that they wouldn't have to pay royalties for more than a couple years. Now this certainly could be wishful thinking, but it is also not the proof you were looking for. As I said before, NOK, MOT, TI, DSP, LSI have all stated with complete conviction that they felt that Q would not be able to make them pay royalties on W-CDMA. QCOM stated unequivocably that their possition was unassailable. I submit that I don't know AND that you don't know how it will all work out in court, and you have presented nothing new to sway my belief that this is unknowable. If wireline rates and cross-system compatibility are not the primary reasons why the US penetration has lagged Europe, then what? Please explain because I genuinely would like to know. I agree that CDMA is better technology than GSM, but it really doesn't matter. 2G choices were mostly set in stone 5 years ago, and no wishful thinking will change them. The advantages of coverage, and volume (which means the best new handsets are launched in GSM first as well as cheaper manufacturing costs)somewhat offset the technical advantages of CDMA - meaning it will come down to individual carriers selling individual brands. CDMA may grow faster than GSM - it hasn't been, but it probably will - but there will still be 4-5 times more GSM phones sold worldwide for at least 2-3 years. No question that CDMA operators will have smoother upgrade path to high speed data services and will likely have to spend less money to accoplish the change. This doesn't mean that TDMA based systems won't be able to do it, or that Europe will be "liberated". Call me skeptical. I think this has gotten a little religious between Tero and You and the rest of the QCOM crowd. I try to be a little less emotional than that. IF you can convince me that my concerns are invalid, I would certainly buy Q, but for now, I'll stay on the sidelines.