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 (3921)	3/31/2000 12:22:00 PM
From: Martin Atogho	Respond to of 34857

Tero, Terrapin, you are right. WCDMA was not on the list of technologies for which Motorola recently had an agreement with Qcom. So, that just makes the issue fuzzier. At least Hitachi did sign an agreement, however, as evidenced by the link below. Granted, it is a Qcom press release. Message 13263878 If I can find similar information ref. Ericy, I will also post it here. Terrapin, I appreciate the concern of Nok longs when Qcom investors keep badging unto this thread. I suppose they do so for various reasons, not all of them justified. But I think some of the concerns are shared, and as I said before, it would be a relief for all concerned if issues like the IPR claims were clearer. In the meantime, I guess we just have to be patient. rgds, MA.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3921)	3/31/2000 3:20:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 34857

Tero, I don't believe MOT has any IPR in W-CDMA, so it would be mute, in the context of that agreement. Ruff

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (3921)	3/31/2000 6:51:00 PM
From: A.L. Reagan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Tero - would it be more or less correct to characterize the WCDMA situation thusly: - NOK (and I suppose ERICY) have made substantial contributions to the art beyond the basic "wheel and axle" QCOM spread spectrum IPR; - NOK would expect/hope for an ultimate resolution along the lines of a cross-license that would in some fashion recognize the proportionate contributions of each company's IPR; - QCOM's position is that if any portion of their IPR is used, regardless of the IPR contributed by others, full boat royalties must be paid to San Diego; - Following the above, if an infra/handset mfgr. wants to implement W-CDMA, QCOM says feel free to license IPR from NOK or whoever, provided QCOM gets the full pound of flesh; - The longer QCOM can drag this issue out from a resolution, the better for them - just buy CDMA2000 and pay one royalty only; or - Would it really be in both QCOM's and NOK's best interest to have a proportionate x-license scheme on the theory (from QCOM's standpoint) that half of many loaves from widespread migration to W-CDMA is better than all of a few narrowband loaves? The various standards bodies have historically been not too receptive to one company playing "dog in the manger." How do you see this ultimately being resolved - by standards bodies exerting (what?) leverage over QCOM, or by the boys and girls learning to play nice all by themselves? (I'm beginning to guess the latter, and that there are more than a few toys in NOK's chest that QCOM would like to play with, and the most recent rounds of "mutually assured FUD" are really just posturings for each camp to work out the best slices of what will ultimately be divided pies - and that dividing the pies is really in each party's best interest.) Disclosure - mostly a QCOM'er, but with a few NOK and ERICY shares in a wireless telecom fund.