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: Lynn who wrote (65547)	1/31/2000 7:23:00 PM
From: GO*QCOM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Typical Wall Street Press.They still don't get it.They need an advisor from the industry that understands IPR.

To: Lynn who wrote (65547)	1/31/2000 7:38:00 PM
From: Johnnie Memmonic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Ahem, Let's see what was said by my favorite poster, Greggs Power: www3.techstocks.com "Qualcomm's royalties are established by contractual agreement with each licensee. The contractual agreement with Ericsson does not differentiate between the royalties derived from WCDMA and cdma2000. The patent pool approach, to which you allude, was attempted by the Europeans but rejected by Qualcomm." www3.techstocks.com "RE: Are you saying that Q and E will be the only patent holders to receive royalties for 3G? I am not suggesting this at all. Let's put this in perspective. Qualcomm developed a body of intellectual property that proved central to the commercialization of mobile direct sequence spread spectrum. Recognizing that it is better to participate in a large opportunity rather than dominate a far smaller one, Qualcomm management adopted a strategy of licensing its core technology to major wireless equipment manufacturers including Lucent, Motorola, Nortel, Samsung, Nokia etc. All of these agreements provided the licensee would pay Qualcomm a fixed royalty, based on the manufacturing transfer price, in exchange for the right to use Qualcomm's intellectual property. If a licensee required additional IPR in order to achieve its intended design specifications, it is incumbent on the company to license this technology from its rightful owner (and pay additional royalties). Incidently, one of the advantages of CDMA over GSM is that so much of the core IPR is available from one vendor, i.e. Qualcomm. I have seen several studies indicating that a new entrant to the GSM market, with nothing proprietary of its own to trade, would wind up entering into in excess of ten license agreements and paying royalties in greater than twenty percent (of manufacturing transfer cost). So my point is simple. Qualcomm gets its pound of flesh, which I estimate to be between 3% and 5%, from each and every manufacturer of mobile CDMA related products, regardless of the deployment mode selected. Thus the royalty terms are contractually established and fixed." I can't believe that what was said repeatedly along time ago and still can not comprehended by the press today! Regards,