SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Gus who wrote (3526)2/2/2000 5:05:00 PM
From: Valueman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 34857
 
Back at ya simpleton.

Your facts are wrong, your ears aren't listening, and you do not pay attention to the realities out there.

Good luck.



To: Gus who wrote (3526)2/2/2000 5:20:00 PM
From: Eric L  Respond to of 34857
 
Gus,

<< You're repetitive and tiresome >>

Gus, you are a pretty knowledgeable guy. Despite that, you rank right up there with some of the most repetitive and tiresome, not to mention downright rude people that post on the Telecom threads.

Is there any possibility that you could tone it down just a decibel or two, please.

The tone you use on the EMC thread is a lot less susceptible to producing clamor than the one you use here.

- Eric -



To: Gus who wrote (3526)2/2/2000 5:56:00 PM
From: Valueman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 34857
 
Let me be repetitive once again. You say:

b) QCOM wants to charge the same flat patent-one, patent-all royalty rate regardless of (a)

Not only do they WANT to, but they HAVE successfully done that. ERICY is a fine example of a company that will pay the same rate for W-CDMA as for today's CDMA. Philips, whom you cite as a holder of essential CDMA patents, has also signed a W-CDMA license with Qualcomm. Lucent has as well. Now why would they do that Gus? Qualcomm does not contradict me at all.

My apologies to the Nokia board, but this man is spreading FUD at an amazing rate. I have made my point--this is the last you'll hear from me.