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: gdichaz who wrote (4497)	12/23/1999 2:23:00 PM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

John: You are entitled to your views. I am entitled to mine - you are wrong. Not sure whether to assume a missing <g> here, but we will never know about right or wrong since only one occurred in the real world and the other may have been even better or even worse. Kind of like politics and economics where there are so many variables that "experiments" never prove anything. Not to say I've any less confidence in my answer! The arrangement to keep the Q's people (just leasing them for a three year period) and the key R&D involvement is a master stroke. Worth all the complexity and "messiness" it took and will take. This solution is elegant. Not elegant, just complex. It solves nothing that simpler solutions wouldn't solve as well. It does handle the Options problem but that could be solved by just vesting them for the employees in question. As far as R&D is concerned, what does Q need with handset R&D if they don't make phones? Are you trying to tell me that their ASIC engineers would make a lousy product if they didn't have a phone division? Do Intel or AMD make lousy chips because they don't sell boxes. If you want to convince me you're right about this you'll need to back up your statements with stronger stuff than "this solution is elegant". <g>