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: A.L. Reagan who wrote (11868)	6/8/2000 7:13:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 13582

<P.S. Selling the ASIC division guts the heart and soul from the company. This is a whole lot different from infrastructure, handsets, Globalstar gateways, etc. which weren't/aren't core competencies and the core competitive advantage. I don't want to see Q end up like IDCC has operated through most of its recent history. And I don't think the Q's San Jose crew trying to figure out DS ASIC's has any significant value to anybody but the Q. So, there's a few more disagreements to smoke in your pipe! > Not if it is spun-off along with HDR, and NOK buys a piece:)

To: A.L. Reagan who wrote (11868)	6/10/2000 8:26:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

From a PM message: <You might point out to A.L.Reagan that Ericy and eleven other equipment manufacturers around the world, many of whom claim IP for the WCDMA-DS-VW40 "standard", HAVE AREADY SIGNED unilateral royalty bearing cross licenses with Qualcomm covering all flavors of 3G cdma. Thus, there will no additional haggling with these "musketeers", and Q has told us net,net,net, its royalties under these agreements provide for roughly the same percentage rates as under the earlier IS95 licenses. MOT and NOK are the exceptions, and they will come round too, sooner or later, and agree to the same terms. Q will NOT sign off on license agreements that are substantially lower, as that would trigger certain clauses in existing license agreements that provide for "at least as good as" treatment for early licensees. You can point everyone to Q's May, 1999 10-Q filing with the SEC which includes as an exhibit the full Ericy purchase agreement, subscriber unit license, and infrastructure license (redacted, of course, for the secret bits). All these GSMer's like Reagan continually spout about royalty arrangements, but I'll bet few have ever taken the time to actually read the agreements that are right there in the public record. > Mqurice Note: Identifying marks removed to protect the writer from people like Ajay Aggarwal who should go here Message 13862831 if he wants to continue learning about India or continue to be obnoxious. [Actually, isn't Aggar a jelly stuff you grow bacteria on? Just kiding]. By the way Arun, it would not be very difficult to know more about India than most non-Indians. It would be not too hard to know more about India than a democratic majority 51% of Indians do too! You want to test me? Think of it this way. Ask 50% of Americans various questions, like "Which way is north?" "Who is the President?" "What is a constitution?" "Which country deciphered the Enigma Code?" "How do you spell potatoe?" and you might find it's not all that hard knowing more about a country and understanding what makes it 'tick' than half the locals do. AL, sorry about the person calling you "GSMer spouting" but I thought I'd leave the full message intact. I guess that's not too bad compared with what Ajay and the RV Gentleman think of me.