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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rajala who wrote (75473)	7/6/2000 12:49:40 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>> W-CDMA is an open 3-G standard, which is specified (mainly) by ETSI and to which any manufacturer is invited to produce goodies. Let's not neglect to note "open standard" does not mean the invitees will get a free lunch. Manufacturers will have to pay patent fees to the gsm gang, and if you believe Dr. Jacobs, to Qualcomm as well. >> The 3-G standard of Q is called CDMA2000 and is proprietary, i.e. Q stands to gain royalties on each adaptation. The main differences being CDMA2000 has been demonstrated viable, will be available at least 12 months before wcdma, and the patent license fees will be far less than those related to wcdma. jmho, uf

To: Rajala who wrote (75473)	7/6/2000 2:22:27 PM
From: Randall Knight	Respond to of 152472

W-CDMA is an open 3-G standard, which is specified (mainly) by ETSI and to which any manufacturer is invited to produce goodies. The 3-G standard of Q is called CDMA2000 and is proprietary, i.e. Q stands to gain royalties on each adaptation. Allow me to make some clarifications and corrections here. First, W-CDMA has not been standardized in any meaningful way. It is impossible to develop any working apparatus to the W-CDMA standard and be guaranteed that it will work on any other W-CDMA system. Second, you seem to be confusing the issue by stating that W-CDMA is more open than CDMA2000 in that everyone is invited to make equipment for W-CDMA but only QCOM licensees can make equipment for CDMA2000. In fact, both CDMA versions will require a license from QCOM. W-CDMA is designed especially the GSM in mind. This is true but not in the way that you imply. W-CDMA has no distinct advantage over CDMA2000 as an upgrade to a GSM system. In fact, there are many technological disadvantages to it. The only thing about GSM that was considered when creating W-CDMA was that the GSM suppliers would have a propaganda tool to use against CDMA2000 so that they could milk their GSM cow dry. There is even a clear albeit less than likely possibility that no commercial CDMA2000 systems will ever be built. You better tell that to Verizon, Sprint, DDI/IDO, and the Koreans who are installing the first part of that standard right now. Why don't you leave the anti-QCOM propaganda to Tero? He writes much better than you although he is just as off the wall as you are.

To: Rajala who wrote (75473)	7/6/2000 3:50:34 PM
From: ehopper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Even if CDMA2000 only sweeps the US it will be a multi-billion dollar payoff. Consumerism, as much as people may make fun of US consumerism (e.g. Ford could not keep white Ford Broncos in the Show room after the OJ trial) without it the entire world would be greatly effected. I have no numbers so this is just my opinion, in my travels I have seen no other culture (except perhaps evolving in china and re-establishng itself in Japan- two large markets I admit) that is as eager to spend money on new appliances, cars, electronics, etc as America. I doubt that the global manufacturing community would be where it is today without the US consumer. Why do you think that the entire world views the US patent office as "the world patent office", why do companies like Ericsson(Hockey), Nokia (Sugar Bowl, Snow Boarding) target the US. Itis the largest consumer market in the world. I again have no numbers however I would not be suprised that for every $1.00 spent by a German, Brit etc on a "luxury" item, an American spends $5.00. So with this said, if Qualcom could sweep the US market and take royalties from IPR in other regions they will still make alot of $$$ over time. Shareholders should think about this. ed

To: Rajala who wrote (75473)	7/6/2000 3:57:52 PM
From: waverider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Oh God, I knew these worms would start crawling back. If you ever posted ANYTHING else other than negative commentary on QCOM and G* during the ENTIRE time you have been on SI, then your statements may have some credibility. But you haven't. So bug off Mr. Basher.