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: mmeggs who wrote (11671)	6/6/2000 5:12:00 PM
From: foundation	Respond to of 13582

((("Message #11671 from mmeggs at Jun 6, 2000 4:42 PM ET No doubt that the W-CDMA crowd is painting the issue to appear as if Q is just another contriubtor to the big, happy, W-CDMA IPR pool. And no doubt that Q does have the critical IPR to collect substantial royalties. My question is, assuming a substantial portion of the world uses W-CDMA for 3g, is there other IPR Q would have to license to produce W-CDMA chips? (In effect providing a lower net royalty stream.)"))) Bear in mind that they can't use (W)CDMA without QCOM's IP. At all. Period. Why make it more complicated? Are they going to drag IJ into an alley and beat a low royalty out of him? There is no compelling force to persuade QCOM to forge an unfavorable deal. Possible (W)CDMA litigation will not stall 3G CDMA in Korea or Japan or elsewhere. Yes, build it in their back yard - rub it in their face. With what would GSN telcoms compete? Edge?? Let's litigate. All the better for pure CDMA. regards, blg