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: Maurice Winn who wrote (4140)	4/13/2000 2:11:00 AM
From: JP Sullivan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

More paws will be on the IPR in W-CDMA meaning higher royalties on W-CDMA meaning a higher price to subscribers. I don't understand how this helps anyone who can wear the label 'customer'. Maybe many paws in the IPR pie. But do all of those paws (especially the ones that count) belong to IPR companies? I take it NOK has a huge paw in the pie. But it doesn't necessarily mean that NOK is interested in jacking up the IPR royalty or making scads of profits off it; nor is it in NOK's interest to do so, IMHO. NOK's business is selling cell phones and telco equipment. It is better served by "giving/trading away" it's IPR so that W-CDMA will quickly establish itself as a standard. The benefits are obvious: it avoids paying Q (or if it must pay, then a sum substantially less) and has horses to trade with its competitors, who also claim some of the IPR pie (your Arabian for my mustang). Well, what about those IPR holders that won't play? I guess it remains to be seen how substantial their IPR claim is and whether it makes sense for them to hold out in the long run (going to court can take years, and in the meantime your stock price goes nowhere--if you're lucky). OTOH these claimants may wise up and go for half a loaf, which is better than starving. Your other arguments are mostly centered around the supposed technical superiority of CDMA 2000 over W-CDMA. Even if it were true that CDMA 2000 is better than W-CDMA (and that has yet to be seen), nowhere is it written that the technically challenged option will not prevail. There are lots of other factors to consider besides quality. As far as cdmaOne service providers are concerned, they'll switch over to the other side if they find themselves in the minority. For years I avoided Windows like the plague and clung on to my trusty Mac. Guess which machine I use 95% of the time these days. And I won't even bore you with the tale of my Betamax. Suffice to say that taking the technical high road doesn't necessarily mean you'll come out ahead. Just as important to remember is that the inferior (but still usable) option that gets adopted is capable of improving and closing in on the superior one, especially when it has proponents with deepening pockets. WE