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: Mrjns who wrote (27290)	7/5/2000 3:32:17 PM
From: shamsaee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

< With all due respects, I think it's you, sir & the other qcom devotees who are wasting this thread's bandwidth> Well that pretty much eliminates every one on the thread.The floor is your please argue your point. <Last I checked there were half a dozen threads for this company & I and most lurkers/non qcom posters would prefer it taken there.> I suggest you go back and review the portfolios of the posters here and it seems very relevant to the discussion.

To: Mrjns who wrote (27290)	7/5/2000 3:49:26 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

<<Few companies merit the G & K designation & the attendant discussion and qcom does not merit it at this time.>> has some other company come up with a discontinuous innovation, that is a proven substitution threat, to QCOM as gorilla of CDMA ? cheers, kumar@rtrfm.org

To: Mrjns who wrote (27290)	7/6/2000 10:45:21 AM
From: Apollo	Respond to of 54805

Few companies merit the G & K designation & the attendant discussion and qcom does not merit it at this time. Hi Rn: From one doc to another, may I suggest you review this link: Personal Portfolio Survey of G & K Thread: 4/2000 G&K post #23966 Message 13530736 Qcom is one of the few gorillas in the High Tech investing jungle........based on views by G. Moore and by the collective and exhaustive wisdom of this thread. Because of its portfolio dominance, it deserves as much original and pertinent discussion as can be mustered. As this thread declared it to be a gorilla months before G. Moore did, there is also a certain sentimental appeal. Apollo

To: Mrjns who wrote (27290)	7/6/2000 12:42:15 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

rnathan, << With all due respects, I think it's you, sir (shamsaee) & the other qcom devotees who are wasting this thread's bandwidth >> << Few companies merit the G & K designation & the attendant discussion and qcom does not merit it at this time >> Few companies do merit the G & K designation, and particularly the gorilla distinction. QCOM does merit it. Qualcomm is a gorilla and is a major holding for many of the threads participants. Young gorillas and potential gorillas merit considerable discussion here. That is in fact, what this thread is all about. << Last I checked there were half a dozen threads for this company & I and most lurkers/non qcom posters would prefer it taken there. >> If active participants ask me to reduce the number of posts on QCOM I file, I will. I am most appreciative that you have come out of lurk mode. Participation from lurkers is most encouraged as is counterpoint or a contrarian point of view. If you care to actively participate in this thread you might consider preparing a complete case for the fact that Qualcomm is NOT a gorilla. I would if you don't mind like to reference and comment on one liners from your posts # 27293 & 27275. "QCOM & RMBS are a different kind of beast whose success is solely dependent on their IP being adopted" There are certainly some similarities. Qualcomm is a gorilla. Rambus might be. Discussions about Qualcomm bear on analyses of Rambus. This type of analyses is what this thread is intended for. "now we are talking lawsuits to enforce patents in wcdma ... Reminds me a little bit of another (niche player) company's strategy - IDCC, ring a bell ? How the mighty have fallen ..." IDCC does indeed ring a bell. I've examined them pretty closely. There strategies are very different than Qualcomm's. IDCC is a greenmail house with unstable leadership that throws IP on the wall hoping it will stick. Some has, and this contributes to there $48 Mil revenues and $871 Mil market capitalization. Not a single analyst takes them seriously enough to follow them. IDCC promoters try to pass InterDigital off as a "Baby Qualcomm" but bringing a discontinuous innovation to market is not IDCC's game. One might say that they are forming a value chain, but since they do not control a proprietary open architecture, and have proven no major contribution to an open architecture ... they are not of much interest to this thread. By contrast Qualcomm $3,912 Mil revenues and an $43,304 Mil market capitalization. 15 to 20 analysts follow the stock at any time, including virtually all that specialize in the wireless telecom arena. Qualcomm will vigorously defend their IP. They will do so with litigation if necessary. They have adequate cash to do so. There may be some litigation as it regards next generation technology. If it does happen I personally don't think it will be with the major players. Any defense of IP affects a tornado that is yet to form. I would like to see IP on 3G matters settled. It would eliminate uncertainty and conjecture. In the case of GSM, these matters were not completely settled till years after GSM launched. That could be the case with 3G and the DS mode of CDMA, but I think we'll see most matters resolved within 12 months. Peace, to thee as well. - Eric -