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: Ruffian who wrote (12779)	6/21/2000 6:05:00 PM
From: A.L. Reagan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

What am I missing, A.L? Basketball analogy: MC = slam dunk DS = jump ball P.S. I think our guys, although perhaps shorter in stature, are speedier and can jump pretty well - but they've got a couple of gawky 7 footers on the other side with much of the paying audience rooting for the other team. We'd all like to invest in slam dunks. Jump balls are a lot trickier. (Like no matter how high we can jump, the ref could end up being bought off and toss the ball closer to the other guys.) Any stock that is priced as a slam dunk, which is in reality a jump ball, is a bad deal to hold. We are not in that position any more, let's not replicate the conditions that led to it. P.S. QCOM has consistently stated that the gross royalty rate is the same between DS & MC (but that's the gross, not the net in a bi-lateral x-license). I, unlike apparently some, do believe what IJ says publicly. However, I have never heard IJ say that Q is indifferent between making MC vs. DS ASIC's, or that the net royalty rate is the same. Have you?