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

To: w molloy who wrote (53732)	12/13/1999 3:16:00 PM
From: 100cfm	Respond to of 152472

WM <<bet on them developing their own CDMA technology.>> Is this possible?? this is what occasionally interrupts my sweet Q dreams. CDMA seems to be like the 51 flavors of baskin robbins. everybody's got a flavor. is or isn't cdma Q's ip regardless of what flavor and or who developes it. regards 100

To: w molloy who wrote (53732)	12/13/1999 9:10:00 PM
From: cfoe	Respond to of 152472

A company can decide to pay for their own development if they percieve the market to be immature, or pay royalties to someone else if the market is hot. I agree with you and that is exactly why I said what I did. Wireless is HOT, HOT, HOT (as the song goes) and it is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Nokia has already wasted time trying to go their own way. Your view of Samsung is wrong too. While they are prepared to work with QCOM now, bet on them developing their own CDMA technology. Also bet on them looking for a second source supplier (LSI for example). Asian companies always do. I agree with you and do not think this makes my previous post "wrong." A partnership is a living organism that has to benefit both parties to justify its continued existence. IBM used to have "one-way" partnerships, really their customers were held in "resentful bondage", and when they could break away from IBM (to minis and then PCs) they did. I am sure the management at QCOM knows that if Samsung finds it can do better elsewhere it owes it to its stakeholders to do so. No problemo. In the meantime however, both companies seem to be committed to get the most mutual benefit out of their relationship. This is all that I meant and it works a heck of a lot better than to "grudingly" pay royalties and resist making the relationship all it could be for both parties, especially because one party will succeed. Isn't that what a partnership is all about - both parties succeeding?