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: Kent Rattey who wrote (5176)	6/1/2000 8:42:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

The problem with the March 1999 announcement was that it does not resolve the W-CDMA IPR question. Not even if you post it on this thread for 50 times (and this was post number 47 according to my tabs). This religious talisman lost its magical powers somewhere around early January 2000. The world already knows that Qualcomm's licensing fees are negotiable - the Chinese were promised hefty cuts on IS-95 and that may be only the first round of discounting. There are no numbers here. No word on the cross-licensing terms. This does not tell us how low the Koreans might push the IPR fees regardless of what Qualcomm and Ericsson agree. Or how low the Chinese will go after that. Nothing about how DoCoMo and Nokia IPR may tie into the W-CDMA situation. Nothing about what proportion of the net worth of the new W-CDMA network orders actually falls inside the domain of CDMA patents. There are enough holes here to drive a Scania truck through. I'm not sure you understand how sneaky and devious creatures Swedes can be, Kent. But there's something worth noting in this press release; Lehman Brothers was Qualcomm's advisor. That puts the recent remarks made by Lehman analysts into proper context. Tero

To: Kent Rattey who wrote (5176)	6/1/2000 8:56:00 AM
From: Mr.Fun	Respond to of 34857

Please note that the press release says nothing about the relative size of the royalty payments, nor does it support the contention that royalty payments to Q will be the same for all of the CDMA variant technologies. I have no inside information as to specific contracts with Qualcom nor am I making any judgment as to the value of the relative contribution of the various companies involved in W-CDMA. I am saying that in meetings with Ericsson exectutives it does not seem as cut and dried as the Qualcomm supporters would have you believe. Essentially, Ericsson SAYS that the royalty payments it receives from W-CDMA will equal or exceed the royalty payments it makes. Nokia and Motorola say the same thing. I also think that it is not in anyone's interest to see this thing in court and the assembled companies will agree to some royalty scheme. Qualcomm needs to sell chipsets for W-CDMA, and if it takes this all the way to court, it will be cutting off its nose to spite its face - moral victory, IPR royalties, but no position in the chipset market.