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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (1385)	7/25/2000 7:51:59 PM
From: A.L. Reagan	Respond to of 196972

Nice balanced post, wstera. Some interesting statements from Spinco's S-1 (that and QCOM 8-K have me a bit bleary-eyed for now.) "QUALCOMM may sublicense our patents, patent applications and invention disclosures essential to any wireless telecommunications standard to third parties for use in wireless applications so long as the third parties agree not to assert their patent rights against us with respect to our manufacture, use or sale of products for use in compliance with any wireless telecommunications standard. With respect to any proposed QUALCOMM sublicensee that does not agree that it will not assert its patents against us, we will be required to license such essential patents to that sublicensee on a fair and reasonable basis, free from unfair discrimination. "In the event of a change of control of QUALCOMM, we may terminate QUALCOMM's right to designate our patents, patent applications and invention disclosures for assignment to QUALCOMM, QUALCOMM's right to grant further sublicenses to our patents, patent applications and invention disclosures and QUALCOMM's right to license the patents, patent applications and invention disclosures that we do not assign to QUALCOMM." 10kwizard.hoovers.com --------------------------------------------- So, there will in fact be one-stop licensing convenience available for the GSM'ers, and yet another poison pill in the QCOM pot.

To: Sully- who wrote (1385)	7/26/2000 5:25:52 AM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 196972

My take on this move is that QCOM wants to separate the ASIC's division off to allow companies like NOK to save face & make a 3G chip deal. wstera, great post. I think your view of QCOM's position and motives is right on. It deserves another read by anyone who has interest in Q, NOK, ERICY or the wireless world in general. Recent comments by Thornly include words to the effect that the Q was lead to the Spinco as Q was negotiating with potential partners. Thanks.

To: Sully- who wrote (1385)	7/26/2000 6:43:46 AM
From: DukeCrow	Respond to of 196972

In my opinion, Qualcomm is rewarding early licensees of 3G CDMA by honoring their contracts and not requiring them to cross-license with SPINCO. They are punishing late licensees by forcing both royalty payments and surrendering of crucial IPR. Qualcomm just raised the stakes. Those early licensees sure look smart. Ali

To: Sully- who wrote (1385)	7/26/2000 8:22:58 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196972

I don't think allowing NOK to save face has anything to do with the spinoff. It's a hardnosed business decision to maximize bargaining power and extract every dollar it can from NOK. Qcom warned NOK the royalty rate would increase if NOK continued to delay. NOK delayed. And now it PAYS. What is worse for NOK competitively is that this is happening just as NOK needs Qcom chips in the worst way. The only saving grace may be that Qcom licenses TXN to make chips for the commercial market, but TXN delayed also. TXN just agreed to pay a bunch of money for dotcomm wireless. While it may have been partially to obtain cdma engineers, the TXN CC emphasized acquisition of cdma IPR. Seems like TXN, in retrospect, has "overpaid" by paying for something it did not need to. Now, when it will come to Qcom to license patent rights, it will have to pay the higher price. Imho, the royalty rate for chip manufacture is worth a lot more than other licenses and the royalty rate should be higher than for infra or handsets. Although I am a TXN shareholder, too, Qcom should stick it to TXN. I think this is coming soon; in TXN CC management said it would obtain license when the time came--indications were fairly soon as TXN has its eye on wcdma chip biz. One curious thing. Why is HDR going to spinco? I would have thought that technology and IPR would stay with Qcom.