To: tinkershaw who wrote (27442 ) 7/7/2000 7:32:47 PM From: mauser96 Read Replies (1) | Respond to I believe that competitors do not have to pay any royalties until they actually start selling a product using some form of CDMA. R&D doesn't count. Thus it is to their advantage to cast as much FUD as possible on Qualcomm up to the point where they are at legal risk. If they use WCDMA the confusion can be amplified, because they will have some IPR of their own to throw into the soup. This gives them more power at a bargaining table or in court. Ultimately, if this comes down to a court fight, it will be very risky for all concerned. Court outcomes are often unpredictable. They are all busy playing chicken now, but ultimately I don't think that QCOM competitors will take this kind of risk, which could be a serious threat to the corporation (and maybe more important, the jobs of the CEO). IMHO, all of this posturing is not really aimed at making QCOM go away, but in reducing the royalties competitors will have to pay and in cutting QCOM's future power. How powerful is QCOM's IPR? I don't think any outsider can be sure, but nothing that has happened lately makes any real impact on this critical point. Perhaps the Rambus case has some similarities - capitulation often comes with a rush. Another unanswered question for me is whether QCOM needs lots of ASIC sales to justify a higher stock price. The stock market hates uncertainty, and as long as we have this I don't expect much from QCOM stock, but I will continue holding my small trial position. I'm willing to tolerate and even enjoy a degree of uncertainty, because uncertain situations have the biggest profit potentials.
