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: Martin Atogho who wrote (2758)	11/18/1999 1:28:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

What are u referring to here? I thought that patents usually last for 17 years or so? Would be grateful if you could clarify. I think the theory goes like this: Even though Nokia (there's the Nok ref.) and about 70 other companies have been paying CDMA royalties and/or license fees to Qualcomm for some time now, one day their "amnesia" may evaporate and one or more of them will remember that they actually developed the technology and will sue Q. Then, the Judge, in a fit of confusion, will rule against the Q and the royalties will be transferred to the true developers who will live happily ever after. Bux

To: Martin Atogho who wrote (2758)	11/18/1999 10:08:00 AM
From: Sommers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Martin, Bux's reply (#2759) is right on the mark. I understand that to be the "theory" as well. To be sure, Mr. Fun is a well respected analyst, but I don't believe he focuses on the wireless sector. I always knew he wasn't a Qualcomm fan. I just wasn't sure why. Now I know it's because he's afraid some judge is going to take away Qualcomm's "lock" on CDMA. I can see this reasoning leading someone to decide to take only half position. But to buy nothing is overly conservative, IMO. What further surprises me is that he isn't just some little guy off the street investing his own money. He probably has influence over 100s of millions, if not more. And yet is still too afraid to take a chance. I spent a few years working for The College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF). I could never document this, but while I was there I saw them throw money (like millions) at small tech companies, with 5 times the downside of Qualcomm, on a whim. If they lost it all, it wouldn't matter. What's a couple mil. when you're running billions? Their account "participants" would never know. We all know every stock has downside potential AND upside potential. But how many stocks have LESS downside and MORE upside than Qualcomm? You're right. Not many. This girl off the street is sticking with Qualcomm. And it ain't no whim.