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: kech who wrote (5951)	1/31/2000 1:57:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

`It's a package deal involving technology transfer and agreements on intellectual property rights,' Zhang said. ``It's not a simple purchasing agreement.'. Some observations: 1. The issue of technology transfer/IPR enforcement has been the thorniest in the entire negotiation, more than royalty rates, imo. 2. China has for 25 years insisted on broad rights in technology transfer agreements in exchange for market-opening initiatives with many established US manuf' companies, seeking to embed the coveted technology in Chinese economic initiatives. 3. And, of course, respect for IPR, and the mechanisms (judicial/legal/commercial tracking) to enforce IPR, even if the will to enforce is present, are not what they are in the West. 4. In the ITU standards debate at the close of 1998 and into the first half of 1999, China proposed its own 3G standard, a fourth flavor of CDMA, if you will. China MII has also stated that it wants to see domestic manufacturers of CDMA handsets fluorish. So, embedding CDMA capability in the Chinese high tech economy is a driver that MII and the special section are looking for. 5. Regarding licenses: I wonder what kind of "tech transfer" could be done without the necessarily royalty bearing information for making CDMA based ASICS? Licenses come in many flavors. For example, in software, some give you the right to write/distribute/re-sell, etc. Some give you the source codes, some not. Engineer would know the hard data that went to LSI/DSP/MOT, etc. But we have seen how NOK could not cut it with a simple license. 6. The better techies on this thread have said that CDMA expertise is much more than knowing CDMA theory, wave forms, rake receivers and soft handoff technology. The real secrets may be semi- or non-patentable know-how and trade secrets from understanding how the ASICs processor function interacts with the up- and down-links in the network. What might be going on here is Chinese demands to "show me the money" in terms of some additional clues about how this all works. I'm sure NOK has filled many a commercial attache's ears about the damn QUALCOMM chips and they just don't work right. 7. Agree with you Tom (good to see you posting--must be the decline in price that's got you out of the woodwork again--got your blood running?? <gg>) that the specificity of this squib is promising. The earlier Bloomberg story posted by Ruff on Buy was full of errors. Also, weird how the Chinese numbers on wireless run from 43 million this year to 70 next. Those numbers sound familiar, don't they? Steve