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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quidditch who wrote (8474)	4/9/2000 9:30:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Steve, << plausible explanation for ... inching toward DS as a standard for some carriers because, there is a greater likelihood of interoperability >> Precisely (IMO). << Putting the postulate a different way ... technical terms rather than standards bodies: ... DS now a "safer" bet for the carriers because the differences between it and CDMA2000 are fewer than might have been imagined at the outset of 1999? >> I have recently and reluctantly formed this impression. The advantages of cdma2000 over DS and time to market (relative to an ITU sanctioned versuion) are less than we imagined. The differences between DS and cdma2000 as relates to interoperability and harmonization are greater than we imagined. BTW: I am as reluctant as you are to concede anything to Tero. I will go a step further and say that ERICY is MUCH better positioned (IMO) in the scheme of things than Nokia is to benefit from QCOM IPR in CDMA (all flavors) and x-licensing. What was a bitter adverserial relationship between ERICY and QCOM, changed dramatically in March of 1999. The ITU barked. ERICY & QCOM listened. I consider QCOM & ERICY to be more in control of near term events events than Nokia & IDC. The recent proposal by ERICY to 3GPP2 (1X/HDR) is worth following and possibly a sign of increased synergy between ERICY & QCOM. - Eric -