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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3625)	1/25/2000 1:07:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

BellAtlantic was getting a "kickback" (which occurred under many circumstances - one reason Q was losing money on handsets versus Nok making money was that Q had too many convoluted sales agreements outstanding - Kyocera, I doubt will be under the same strain) on each Q phone sold versus none on each Nok phone. the incentive for the BellAtlantic is to sell the higher profit phones;" Again, I would prefer to discuss IDC but you divert the discussion away from IDC by making claims about Q and Nokia, let's see if these claims pass the rationality test. So, Qualcomm was paying kickbacks on each phone sold which was causing them to lose money on every phone and Nokia (who was unwilling to pay the kickbacks) phones failed the carriers technical tests and were unfairly denied the right to compete in those carriers markets. The first question that comes to mind is why would Qualcomm pay kickbacks for the right to lose money? Certainly they didn't think they could put the mighty Nokia's, Motorola's, and Ericisson's of the world out of business by gaining an early market share headstart? Qualcomm management wasn't born yesterday. The second question that comes to mind is why wouldn't Nokia take this up with the International Trade Commission? There are well established laws against dumping product at a loss to gain an advantage. Additionally, why would Qualcomm need to pay a money losing kickback while they were selling every handset they could make, as fast as they could make them and simultaneously building new production lines to increase handset capacity? And finally, you are ignoring the reason Qualcomm entered the handset business in the first place which was to provide handsets (which weren't available in sufficient quantities from other manufacturers) to support the roll-out of Qualcomms IS-95 CDMA wireless standard. How can you have a successful standard if there aren't enough handsets to go around? Can you provide a little more information to support the wild claim that Q paid handset kickbacks and therefore carriers decided to fail the Nokia phones based on technical inferiority? Why didn't the carriers just offer the Nokia's at a higher price to give the consumer more choices but still insure favorable handset financials? Other sincere opinions welcome, Bux