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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (36773)	12/2/1999 10:25:00 PM
From: Bruce Evans	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 45548

What is the 237? Is that a road in California? The COMS products which compete with Cisco(not the NIC cards) come from Massachusetts and England. I know quite a few people who work for COMS in Massachusetts, and they like it a lot. Basically, COMS systems products (switches) were the result of the acquisition of two Massachusetts companies: Synernetics and Chipcom.

To: The Phoenix who wrote (36773)	12/3/1999 1:12:00 AM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 45548

Gary: 1. What evidence do you have that EB was unaware of Palm before it "fell into his lap"? ("whoops! Oh..look what I found.") I recall an interview he gave contemporaneously with the acquisition in which he mentioned the potential of Palm. Besides, there were very few people outside the company in those days who recognized AND NOURISHED this potential. EB did. 2. You are the first person I have heard who claims that CSCO has any affinity to "partnering." Even you seem to acknowledge that CSCO "acquires", as opposed to partnering with equals. CSCO clearly believes there are no equals... and this is reflected in the quality - maybe not the quantity - of their partnering. 3. You didn't answer the basic point that employees generally consider COMS a better place to work. That is a fact...which I'll document for you later. 4. EB was the first to really emphasize "convergence" as opposed to the first to mention the basic concept - which I have no doubt has been mentioned from a theoretical standpoint for many years. And correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe COMS is ahead in the race to make a reality of convergence. Basically, you have not set forth any facts to support your belief that EB "is no visionary." Respectfully yours, Bruce