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: Eric L who wrote (28103)	7/17/2000 1:01:09 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Respond to of 54805

Kind of makes a qcom investor feel warm and fuzzy, Eric. uf

To: Eric L who wrote (28103)	7/17/2000 1:03:21 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 54805

I'm a bit befuddled today. Perhaps I'm over-analyzing things so please be charitable if my post makes no sense. I have always thought that WCDMA was an obstructionist standard, designed specifically to preclude QCOM from taking over the European 3G market. It is clear that, while it might be effective in keeping CDMA2000 out of Europe, it won't be effective in keeping QCOM from getting its 5% royalty fees. The net result is to require QCOM to cross-license with other holders of essential IPR should it ever wish to sell WCDMA ASICs. If the Q is successful in maintaining its 5% demand, and I see no reason why it shouldn't, the net effect of the tremendous WCDMA investment by the Euros, as far as the ploy to obstruct the Q, will be to reduce to some degree its WCDMA royalties. My point is that it seems a huge and unnecessary effort to fund an obstructionist standard if the only effect is to reduce Q's royalties to some probably minimal extent if it manufactures ASICs. If it decides not to manufacture ASICs, then WCDMA will probably be delayed because the Euros will have a hell of a time having any one build the chips, and the carriers will scream for CDMA2000 or an HDR overlay over GSM. The point is: Why is any one bothering with WCDMA? It is useless as an obstruction and could easily be delayed by the Q's intransigence on IPR or a refusal to build chips. Something has to be wrong in my assessment as this makes no sense.

To: Eric L who wrote (28103)	7/17/2000 1:08:27 PM
From: shamsaee	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

If I were to interpret his reply,It says that wcdma is not here and has major technical question marks if it even works.Now this comes from the pioneers of cdma technology which brings us back to the question of is it real or BS.If real what speed rates does it achieve in real life deployment.IS it CDMA2000 3x with minor changes to fit on top of GSM? Is DOCOMOS wcdma,a cdma2000 1x with some cosmetic changes. I find it hard to believe carriers would take a risk on a technology that is not proven based on NOK and ERIC pledge that we are working on it and will deliver. Confused as usual.