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: Ruffian who wrote (4118)	12/11/1999 11:19:00 AM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 13582

I was reposting somebodies post on IDC thread.

To: Ruffian who wrote (4118)	12/11/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 13582

TRJ rebuttals (from clubs.yahoo.com have had enough The_Rich_Janitor 12/11/1999 12:32 am EST One more IDC post on this board and I have had it. I won't standby and watch what I though were intelligent investors make a mockery of a real company. Bad enough that I have to put up with their crap on our Yahoo board, but when I can't escape it from here............. You all should know more than anyone, that a move (up or down) in a companies stock doesn't change the company fundamentals. What do you people think, that QCOM has put the HS negotitaions on hold so that they can buy a company that has no important 2G or 3G technology. Anyone with $5,000 and an application can file a patent. Start a damn IDC club if you wish. I hope IDC gets bought and goes to 100, but quit making a mockery out of a great innovative company. Anyone who understands wireless and especially CDMA knows that without extensive infrastructure testing, there is no valid technology. Can someone answer one carrier that is working with IDC on their technologies. Just one. I'll be in my patented time machine if anyone needs me. And anotherthing, a patent doesn't mean shit unless it is key. There are over 8000 patents in a CDMA phone. Only three are core and QCOM has them all. The other 7997 bring in less than $4 combined. Think about it!

To: Ruffian who wrote (4118)	12/11/1999 12:35:00 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

More TRJ rebuttals (from clubs.yahoo.com You just don't get it The_Rich_Janitor 12/11/1999 10:23 am EST First off, I don't really care what people think about my posts. I really don't have to post and most likely won't anymore. For a year, I have posted on these boards and if you listened to what I had to say, you are rich. I have analyzed QCOM from a technical and business perspective because I understand both. My record speaks for itself. Second, I DO understand patent laws and more importantly patents. The plaques on my wall aren't because I'm a moron. If you understand technology, you understand that it isn't the number of patents, but it is the core patents that matter. Take 'power control'. Do you have any idea how many different ways there is to do power control? It is an advancing technology and everytime a higher data rate with new Analog Front End Chips (AFEs) come out, there will be new and improved patents on power control. Having a patent on power control is like having an autograph from your mother. Arrogance and ignorance, huh? Maybe the former, never the later. Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand. IS there a pending patent dispute against QCOM? Fact: No. Against Ericsson: yes. A similar case against Motorola was thrown out of court. Motorola has patent disputes against QCOM. Most have been settled in QCOM's favor. It usually takes years once the claim is filed and retribution is then decided upon which could take years depending on the core of the patent. Do you know how many patents or in a wireless phone? Have you ever made a wireless phone from a circuit board up? Any idea how many patents are involved? Any idea what the worth of those patents are? Any idea what it takes to hold core patents? Well, let me explain again. First off, you can't get core patents unless you are agressively working with carrier, infrastructure and terminal manufacturers at the same time. It takes years to develop integrate test then patent. More importantly, you have to have development contracts that allow you to control IP developed and companies like Motorola and Nokia don't give those. Secondly, owning a patent that people use in their technology can grant you anything from $.0005 to $.10 on something more important. In the past, IDC and most smaller companies choose one-time fees instead of royalty bearing patents. Before a phone is manufactured, large and experienced legal teams investigate and file design reviews. It is very common that patents are violated and there is a very human way of dealing with it. In most situations, the patents are worked around and the violated party is paid a sum for the unintential infraction. This sum is usually very small and is consistant with what the violated party has received in the past for this and/or similar patents. A claim must be made within a certain time by the violated party and more importantly, companies that unintentionally violated the patents are protected (limited) in the amount owed. So, I say again, there are over 8000 patents in a CDMA phone. Three are core and developed by QCOM. They are not 'work around' patents and there has not been a dispute on who owns them. There will not be.If Q or anyone else has violated patents of IDC, liability is limited and will most likely bring IDC between $10,000 and $100,000. Could get settled for more to avoid lawyers costs, but there is no big pay day coming. If IDC gets bought that would be great for their shareholders. I hope they do because I like to see people make money. But those are rumors and not very credible ones. I have asked all the IDC 'expert' to explain why the stock is worth buying and the only answer they have is because they have a lot of patents. Well, most technology companies do and that's not a reason to buy. A good business model with deired products in a growing market helps. That isn't there, imo. **** Continued The_Rich_Janitor 12/11/1999 10:24 am EST So while you insult me as ignorant and arrogant, understand this; what burns me is that I am a major holder of QCOM stock and there are accusations on QCOM message boards that IDC is against QCOM and QCOM has violated patents and that QCOM will buy a company to avoid...... These are dangerous RUMORS that could effect the price of a company that I own. So forgive me for getting pissed at people who add fuel to the fire when it is, indeed them, who don't understand patents, CDMA and QCOM's place in the wireless industry. And on stock manipulation. If you can't see that QCOM has been managed into a nice little holding pattern, then fine with me. It rarely moves in parallel to the market, but it has kept steady around 380-400 (95-100). It will break out, no one can judge when. Hell, it could also go down to 300. Doesn't really matter to me because I know what tomorrow brings - Guess I'm just being arrogant. Take it with a grain of salt. What does 12 years in this specific industry give me anyway. Good luck to you all! I may not see you all in March because I may have a golf date that day. If there is anything important I need to know, I'll ask the presenters beforehand.

To: Ruffian who wrote (4118)	12/11/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: puzzlecraft	Respond to of 13582

RE: "Well, CDMA was not invented by QCOM, it was developed by IDC and licensed to QCOM". Perhaps this is akin to saying that the Graphical User Interface was developed by Xerox and then advanced by Apple. Apple added a huge number of features and elegance and made the user interface work in the mass market (and later Microsoft too, drawing from both Xerox and Apple), Xerox cannot now try to get $ from Apple and Microsoft. And as QCOM has done much work to advance the development of CDMA and make the air interface work in the real world, protected by a strong set of it-works-in-the-real world patents, IDC cannot go and try to get $ from QCOM. John