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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (21927)	3/31/2000 7:15:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike: Since my ten minutes are up, please let me remind you that you know better than most the original book's scope. My memory is that it did not cover telecom in any form, shape or manner. Qualcomm is a telcom stock. The focus of the software discussed in the original book was related to computers. Now fortunately there is a convergence with computers as wireless data moves front and center. But a year ago Qualcomm was a wireless voice company with a software component. I stand by my point. And the reason Geoff Moore was so slow and almost stubborn in recognizing Qualcomm as a gorilla was that telcom was outside his area of study and experience. I submit that Qualcomm was a major branching out from the scope of the coverage of the GG book and its authors. No one here is suggesting we limit ourselves to the computer related stuff that covered are they? Best. Cha2 PS Since the anniversary of the time of your introduction of Qualcomm is coming up, it is my view that your analytical skills, thinking and persuasiveness made it clear that Qualcomm was a gorilla in CDMA. Absent that detailed, in depth DD which you presented, Qualcomm might have languished in the jungle - at least for some time. Hey your sometime agent is trying again - if only in a PS. :)

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (21927)	4/2/2000 1:17:00 AM
From: mtnlady	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Sorry guys I am just getting caught up in this discussion (kids are going to bed -- finally!). I hear we are only allowed to talk about "tech" stocks and "software" stocks - true? Vague guidelines as almost everything now days has software. And what exactly constitutes a "tech" stock? Here is what I am wrestling with... what about companies like CREE and SiC? Where does it fit in? I sure hope we don't toss out talking about companies like this. I don't need a thread to tell me that Cisco is an interesting investment (although I may want to argue that Nortel is a better investment! Lol!). What I DO want to discuss is emerging technologies (why are fuel cells not ok?) and discussing if these are in a tornado yet, what is required to have a tornado and then, as a group, ripping through the candidates trying to find the gorilla or king amongst them. As far as bio stocks go. I'm with you guys - I don't understand them. However, to play the 'devil's advocate'. If these companies are allowed to patent their finds - say the mapping for a gene. And then all subsequent meds using this mapping had to pay royalties. That sure sounds like a proprietary architecture to me. Perhaps at that time we start a bio gorilla and king thread for those who want to discuss that industry (simply because the medical field is so immense in and of itself). I guess my point is that it seems that the key for us is a) proprietary architecture (i.e. is it a gorilla or a royalty play?) b) value chain and c) tornado ... regardless of the industry.