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: tero kuittinen who wrote (3912)	3/31/2000 8:22:00 AM
From: Martin Atogho	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Tero, It is good to note your being unequivocal as to the fact that there will be a licensing fee to Qcom on WCDMA. As to whether, there is one due to Nok, we shall see. And it is something that needs clearing up. This is something that Nok would do well to clear up by stating their position, as Qcom has done. Until then, they leave it open to unnecessary speculation, and counter accusations of FUD, etc. Since you say that for now, you don't pretend to know Nok's IPR position ref. WCDMA, I hope that you would let us know when you know better. rgds. MA.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3912)	3/31/2000 9:21:00 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 34857

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. Exactly. As a QCOM shareholder, that is a concern to me. I think people take it as a given that there will be no decline in royalty share. One can cite chapter, line and verse going back to the Ericsson settlement. Along with numerous PRs and verbal statements by mgmt. But I am taking a believe-it-when-I-see-it attitude on this one. Since present market cap discounts future cash flows, the certainty of those flows (or the market's fickle take on the certainty) is a critical issue.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3912)	3/31/2000 10:23:00 AM
From: Peter J Hudson	Respond to of 34857

Tero, Acting as if the W-CDMA license issue is only important to the Q visitors to your thread is wrong. You must acknowledge that W-CDMA in important to Nokia's future. This is not a QCOM vs. NOK issue, they are no longer competitors. Owning stock in both companies gives one a little different perspective on the 3G issues. I am concerned with Nokia's apparent lack of progress with any form of CDMA. The fact that Nokia has not been successful with a CDMAone phone is significant. Only focusing on Nokia's many continuing successes is easy, but may not be the best way to predict the future of the company. GPRS is a stop gap technology that will be good for NOK in the short term, but CDMA is the future. Pete

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3912)	3/31/2000 12:26:00 PM
From: Kayaker	Respond to of 34857

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 see the debate. The paragraph below is from the Feb 17th analyst conference. Seems clear to me. All these companies licensed with QCOM to do W-CDMA and yet, I've never seen a single mention of any company signing with NOK for W-CDMA. Why is that? Staying on the other, 3G, and in particular W-CDMA, major companies, Lucent, Ericsson, Nortel, Samsung, Philips, and a number of others are licensed today to do W-CDMA or DS CDMA, the mode of the ITU standard, proposed standard. And these license agreements require that these companies pay us royalties. And it's the same royalty, whether they sell products for CDMAone, whether they sell the products for MC CDMA, or whether they sell it for DS CDMA. Message 12931020