SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (51090)11/19/1999 3:53:00 PM
From: idler  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Eli Lilly has a patent monopoly on Prozac that generates some $4 billion a year in royalties/revenues. No one has challenged that. There are also other drugs out there in the same market. CDMA patents are no different. CDMA does not even have the lion's share of business at this point -- unlike Windows. At some point in the future, if 90% of all wireless is CDMA and Q pushes the envelope like Microsoft apparently did, we may have to watch out. Until then, it's more a matter of other powerful competitors trying to figure out a way around CDMA.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (51090)11/19/1999 8:22:00 PM
From: sdb4q  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
People are making too much of the comparison with Microsoft. The whole point of having a patent system is to ENCOURAGE monopoly profits as an incentive to innovate - but only for a while, that is why they expire. Microsoft, on the other hand, used its clout to threaten other companies - something entirely different. It also created so-called "tying" arrangements, which are expressly illegal. I don't think there will be any kind of a domestic legal challenge on Q's right to receive royalty payments for proprietary technology - although there is certainly a great deal of risk internationally that companies will simply refuse to pay and tie things up in court. Anybody else agree?

Steve.