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

To: Randall Knight who wrote (3908)	3/31/2000 1:02:00 AM
From: Peter J Hudson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Hi Tero, To support what Mr.Knight posted (not that he needs my support), if you are going to make statements about what the C,E.O. of Qualcomm is on record as having said, please site the source. Statements attributable to others need to be verifiable. Only by checking the source material can we verify the accuracy and context of your statement. On a totally different subject. A recent S.S.B. report made this point, "QUALCOMM, THE HIDDEN AND THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY OF ALL 3G NETWORKS A less obvious, but probably the biggest winner in 3G, is Qualcomm because it will collect royalties from every company that plans to manufacture and sell of 3G infrastructure and subscriber equipment based on CDMA technology whether it's CDMA2000 that has its roots in the United States or W-CDMA that has its roots in Europe" Tero, what is your take on W-CDMA IPR. Will NOK need a license from QCOM to manufacture W-CDMA equipment?? We are coming down to the wire. Can W-CDMA happen without paying royalties to QCOM? Come on Tero, take a stand, it's what you do for a living. I think. Thanks again Pete

To: Randall Knight who wrote (3908)	3/31/2000 2:24:00 AM
From: NAGINDAS J.O.PATTNI	Respond to of 34857

Irvin INCOMPETENT?naturally not,dishonest?maybe a little. nagin

To: Randall Knight who wrote (3908)	3/31/2000 6:28:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 34857

Randy - there's a study to support every side of the performance argument. If you pick one comparing the performance of US networks, you can neatly sidestep the point of my argument; the leading commercial GSM networks in Europe delivered a better service to their subscribers than the leading CDMA neworks in North America in year 1999. By deftly changing the rules, any discussion can be brought to a halt. You end your post with a statement about GPRS; "everyone knows that it is a dead end as far as wireless data is concerned". This is a kind of statement that doesn't lead anywhere. You choose to dismiss GPRS as a gateway to EDGE and W-CDMA and declare it a dead end. No explanations, no justification. As far as W-CDMA is concerned, I think we have covered this ground many times. Sure there is a licensing fee to Qualcomm; but since this is a Nokia thread, the interesting question is what is the licensing fee to Nokia. How large is Nokia's IPR? I have never pretended to know the answer to that; but at least I acknowledge that the issue exists. This is a topic our Q visitors simply decline to discuss. It's the proportion of Nokia and Qualcomm IPR that is in question; not whether Nokia will pay Qualcomm any fees. Nobody disputes Qualcomm's patent rights in W-CDMA products; it's the size that is under debate. I don't think this thread is dead yet, though; there's approximately one substantial post to every four or five "GPRS is a dead end" or "W-CDMA belongs to Q" posts. That's a whole lot better than it could be. There was a really interesting post from Babu, for example. It has been completely ignored, because it doean't fit the orthodoxy of the Q fans. I thought it was an interesting angle on the 3G debate - you can find these glimpses of sanity here in SI. Tero