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 (12858)	6/22/2000 6:12:00 AM
From: kech	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Even if the "bottom line Impact" were the same, there would be no 3G holy wars I would disagree with this statement because there is still an issue about the timing of availability of DS-CDMA vs MC - CDMA. Every time I have heard IJ say that he doesn't care about DS vs MC in terms of royalties, he also qualifies it to mean that this is if both are being purchased and the timing of adoption is not affected. The difference is that MC is available now, and can be used to put pressure on TDMA and GSM users in some markets to switch to "CDMA" of any flavor. Whereas, DS is not available now, and the equipment providers such as Nokia seem to be dragging their feet. Even Ericsson might be more agnostic about pushing CDMA than Q would like. So I would say that one of the risks is that Q gets a big royalty on DS-CDMA and MC-CDMA but the timing of adoption in my opinion is more rapid if MC-CDMA is present in the market than if potential users are on the DS-CDMA track. One to two years can make a big difference. Longer time means lower NPV of expected royalties to Q. Others have also pointed out this concern: Message 13921374 By the way, for the Gorilla investing crowd, this is the difference between proprietary standards and non-proprietary standards. Non-proprietary standards can be used and improved at will (see HDR) to bludgeon competitors to change in ways that are consistent with the interest of the non-proprietary standard developer. It is this ability to "pull the rug" out from under competitors which is what gives MSFT its great advantage. Q has more degrees of freedom with MC than with DS, and using HDR to put pressure on the GSM/TDMA world is one of them. That is why I celebrate the success of the MC-CDMA standard more than that of the DS-CDMA standard. But I agree that 3-5 years from now, when everyone is using some version of CDMA, I will care less about the difference. A whole different issue is the one you have been focusing on which is whether the earnings from DS-CDMA ASICS will be the same as on MC-CDMA ASICS, given either one or the other is being purchased today. From what I can tell I think there could be a higher bottom line benefit for MC Asics than for DS ASICS for Q but I am not entirely sure about it. Q management seems to be saying that this isn't true, but somehow they have to get things like GSM dual chips, as well as some DS specific IPR. Hopefully the latter is not so big as Nokia would like everyone to think, and one could argue that they won't need GSM dual chips if IMT-2000 gets adopted as Q and VOD want, which is that there are 3 modes built in, and one is DS and the other is MC. Even if