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: 16yearcycle who wrote (75935)	7/8/2000 9:54:04 PM
From: Hobie1Kenobe	Respond to of 152472

Gene, While a lawsuit may be impractical, I would suggest sending a message to Ted David of CNBC. He is a poster to the SI threads and I watched him politely nail Eckhard Pfeiffer of CPQ to the wall using some info written by a fellow SI member. He answers inquiries with style and IMO is probably the most knowledgeable person in the CNBC organization (I believe he is an attorney and physician). I realize it's practically impossible to do justice to CDMA in 1 minute segments, but CNBC has certainly had the opportunity to get used to reporting about IPR via the RMBS ramp. I'll forward this to Ted David and see what happens. JF3

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (75935)	7/8/2000 10:08:17 PM
From: CAtechTrader	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

More QCOM FUD...it never ends...the sanctimonious financial talk show host, Bob Brinker...who says I told you so about all these over valued stocks...today said in a discussion re: QCOM that W-CDMA was developed by NOK and ERICY with no input from QCOM and that W-CDMA is a direct competitor with QCOM's CDMA2000..is it so difficult for the financial press to understand a story that is "gray" rather than "black and white"? I mean W-CDMA is built on the back of QCOM's IP and QCOM is not cut out by any means if W-CDMA is chosen. As Dr. J says...the flavor of CDMA doesn't matter....what will it take for any balanced or at least sophisticated reporting of the true facts? Time for Dr. J. to hire a PR firm me thinks. We are in a full-ought "FUD fight"!

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (75935)	7/9/2000 3:15:13 AM
From: saukriver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Suing the Media for Being Dumb/Vain? Eugene, interesting idea of yours to the media outlets and individual reporters for reporting false damaging information about a technology and/or stock, specifically on QCOM on Friday. Perhaps the threat of a lawsuit would encourage noisy TV channels to fire some commentators and/or rein in those prone to spout nonsense regarding CMDA/wCMDA without taking the time to understand the technology. I have little interest in such a suit as I hold QCOM longterm. Whether a media outlet repeats press release FUD from the ERICY/NOK bloc should ultimately have little effect on the longterm share price. Either QCOM has the IPR necessary to charge the same royalty rate for wCMDA as it charges for CDMA2000 or QCOM doesn't. Many on this thread think they know the answer to that question; how they come out on that point drives their view of QCOM. Whatever the loudmouth TV FUDbox shows say Friday or Monday or next month really doesn't alter the value of QCOM's IPR in 3G. Frankly, if you listen to Dr. Irwin Jacob's radio interview <http://www.bloomberg.com/money/index.shtml>, you hear a man confident his company holds the keys to making CDMA (whatever the flavor) work in 3G. He may also hold the rocks of the FUDsters in his hands. The media repeating lies and distortions may well hurt the shareprice in the short term. But that really doesn't matter to long term holders. Also, I think the federal and state courts would look quite askance at a suit against a media outlet and individual reporters for being stupid and shallow. If it allows such suits to proceed, we would have unimaginable congestion in our court dockets. saukriver

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (75935)	7/9/2000 8:53:26 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 152472

Eugene: It is an impossible task. But is is certainly a grand idea nonetheless.

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (75935)	7/9/2000 9:59:59 AM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

<<Others will think this is crazy or stupid but if you consider that you are a partial owner of this company, and our business position is being misrepresented over and over again,>> Not crazy at all Eugene, I think this is a "must do project". I know FUD like this great creates fantastic buying opportunities such as today, but I have used up all my dry powder already. A couple of points: This should be a very competent and experienced team such as the collection of people who posted on this thread under the handle Explorer at Large and with legal teeth. This expense of this effort would be also tax deductable. The best positioed and equipped venue for this is our company in my opinion. This does fall into the domain of investor relations, public relations, legal department or a combine new group. But we should be able to ask our company to protect the owners' equity (that's us) against depreciation caused by lies, FUD, slander, negative PR. We as the share holders can make this demand to the management. Of course the media is stupid and ignorant etc. But our new department can make life so difficult when you lie, misinform, spin on the air or on print that they will be forced to do more research, verify their story, include counterpoint. With a dedicated team, you can make these idiot reform themselves. You have a great idea Eugene. Please everyone, any suggestions on who to approach at the company? Best, Sam A.

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (75935)	7/9/2000 4:42:10 PM
From: Tom Kearney	Respond to of 152472

Gene - very interesting response you've received to this post. This is one of the most well written and intelligent set of posts I've seen in quite a while. I think this highlights the frustration people feel about this CDMA issue constantly being misrepresented in the press. I wish you well in this endeavor.

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (75935)	7/9/2000 5:08:55 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gene: There were two "reports" from Korea which were cut and paste from statements made the Friday before (almost a week earlier) which were presented as if just made that day or the previous day in an entirely different context, and statements which claimed to be from government and press sources which had not been made (at least publicly) by either; yet the stories contained them as if both the companies and the government had already decided. One from Bloomberg (reversing an earlier "report") and another from Dow Jones. In fact, neither the companies nor the government have reached any final decision, and there has certainly been no consensus decision reached between them. The Korean press has not reported as alleged, so the "reports" in Bloomberg and Dow Jones which implied that the US press stories "reflected" Korean stories were false. In fact, the Korean press has not even through today published stories on which the Bloomberg or Dow Jones stories could be based. Again a falsity. What to do? The intent apparently was to push Qualcomm stock down Friday. (No direct evidence of that of course. Just a common sense conclusion, since why else put out such internally inconsistent cut and paste stuff as a serious "report"[sic.]). That was successful. So now what? Given the protections in our constitution which is now used by the press as a license to lie with impunity as in this case apparently, how can a lawsuit succeed. It probably can't. But somehow, someway, there ought to be a way to obtain at least a correction to the falsity. Again, unlikely given the apparent immunity of the press even if it fails to "report" with even a slight modicum of fairness or accuracy. That these stories were egregiously inaccurate is clear. That they were made up by cutting and pasting is pretty obvious, but probably not legally provable. In fairness to Bloomberg, Bloomberg made available interview time (note in the afternoon after their story had "worked"), but at least Dr J was able to present his case without constant interruption and he was given time to make his points. Now what has Dow Jones done in a similar way? To my knowledge, nothing. In fact the misreporting continues in the Wall Street Journal. Would a boycott of Dow Jones publications and "services" be a practical possibility or what other alternative to a lawsuit might be worth considering? To let Dow Jones get away with this when it is allegedly a "financial news service" on which people should be able to rely for accurate reporting, seems hard to swallow even in these times or lowest common denominator, relativism and "who cares" as the mantra. But I for one am not holding my breath for a Dow Jones apology or retraction. To Dow Jones truth appears to be a word, not a standard to strive for. Sadly, Chaz