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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: edamo who wrote (25979)	6/7/2000 12:50:00 PM
From: Michael Kimmel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Sorry, misunderstood. Yes, I understand that the issue of patent protection is going to be an important one. But, isn't it also likely that with this ease of communication, and thus world markets instead of "country" markets, that the issue of patent enforcement is about to also become broader in scope? Let's take China in this example. Seeing as this CDMA issue is so visible and political, isn't it likely that if China doesn't respect U.S. patents, that they're likely to remain 3rd world? By this I mean, not many international companies are likely to do business with them. I can't say that I'm a big thinker in this area. I have no formal training in business management. However, it just appears to me that in this particular case, QCOM's technological lead is so great, because the desire for that technology is probably so great, and so broad, that I can't imagine that they aren't going to be wildly successful.

To: edamo who wrote (25979)	6/7/2000 1:28:00 PM
From: John Stichnoth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

"costind/cati/mpt" and "super 863 program"..... How about helping us get "familiar" with them? Here's one link: access.gpo.gov And here's another: christusrex.org I believe that most around here are familiar with the general issues raised--That the Chinese government, and particularly the Army, are active acquirers of foreign technology, that the rule of law is not strong in China, that the technology is wanted for both military applications and civilian infrastructure. However, I'm not sure what they have to do with the central issue facing QCOM--getting its technology accepted as the worldwide standard in the next generation, for voice and data. (1) The PRC is only a small part of the whole. (2) It is generally accepted that all the 3G variants rely on CDMA-based IPR, and if it's CDMA then it is QCOM IPR for which rights must be paid. (3) Nokia claims, or proponents for Nokia claim on their behalf, that NOK will be able to bypass the QCOM patents, but this appears to me to be FUD only, without basis. Analysts' earnings projections through 2001 ignore any potential revenues from China. Jacobs has made the point that QCOM's guidance ignores China. It is an interesting prospect to us all, but not something we need to rely on for continued growth. It is the evolution to 3G that will be the central driver for QCOM over the next several years--giving plenty of time to play the game of chicken with the Chinese, and perhaps get HDR accepted as the data standard.

To: edamo who wrote (25979)	6/7/2000 2:10:00 PM
From: BDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I am a little confused about your arguments regarding the failure of the US to export to the PRC. First you blame American myopia: <<it's a big world, americans always believe "their way" is "the only way".....this has been proven by the poor record of the usa as an exporting nation>> Then in a follow-up post you point out: <<not to say technology transfer will not occur in the future, but in the case of an ideological driven hierarchy that exists in the prc, there is very little protection of patent rights and royalty payments to an entity of any sovereign nation.>> Might not the absence of the rule of law, especially regarding IP, have something to do with American failure to export technology to countries like the PRC? I am reminded of those that are trying to blame the introduction of capitalism from the West for the economic collapse in Russia without taking into account the absence of the rule of law that has resulted in an economy run by a free-wheeling, gun-toting, kleptocracy. Failure to participate in such economies may seem myopic to you, but is eminently rational to me.