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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A.L. Reagan who wrote (72936)	5/31/2000 8:30:00 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 152472

A.L. Reagan, excellent post. While 70% versus 90% mightn't seem like that big of a deal, 10% versus 30% from Q's viewpoint certainly is. So, the real fight is over who sells how many ASIC's and at what margins (net royalties included), and who controls future standards development, not simply over DS and MC CDMA royalties. I wonder how much QCOM is willing to give up (royaltywise) in order to gain more than 10%. Also, I wonder to what extent the talks going on in Korea (by NOK and ERICY) are about marginalizing QCOM, and to what extent are those talks just plain old wrangling for W-CDMA business in Korea.

To: A.L. Reagan who wrote (72936)	5/31/2000 8:38:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

A.L good points. < I think it is a gross simplification to think that just because the Q has the best IS-95 ASIC's, that this means they'll have the best in DS. Unlikely.> Q is proven in the complex are of Asics, record speaks for itself. Anyone else with the expertise on Q's level please rise! A.L But now look at the size of the market! forget the 57 mill CDMA subs, throw in another 500 mill, swimming over to the San Diego Beaches!

To: A.L. Reagan who wrote (72936)	5/31/2000 10:23:00 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

re. your seven points. Not sure of course but I believe most of us have considered the ideas contained in you points. My problem is I'm not an IPR lawyer and hence just don't know what's possible. I don't know (for sure) that Q's CDMA is the heart (the sine qua non) of DS CDMA. However I've done enough reading to believe it to be. If that's true, then is there any legal requirement for your first point to be accurate? 1. Worst case gross royalty to QCOM is +/-5% while its fundamental patents are effective. What I'm getting at here is that in the simple CDMA2000 world charge the ~5%, but in the more complicated DS CDMA world have a more complicated rate structure. Let's say company X says their DS CDMA should result in XR royalties to X. Then Q says "Fine for you our royalties are QR". Now QR is determined such that QR - XR = NR where NR is the net royalty = ~5%. If this approach is: 1)legal, 2)publiclly stated and 3)supported by the strength of Q's IPR, then perhaps some of the current "maneuvering" would cease as it would be seen to have little merit. Now I'm aware that this approach is simple to the point of being simplistic, but why is Q required to charge the same to everyone? Fair? I would be prepared to argue that "under the circumstances" the above proposal is certainly just as fair as what I currently see occurring. As an aside am I the only one who always sees the acronym DS CDMA as BS CDMA. Hanging around... lurqer