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: Don Mosher who wrote (28927)	7/26/2000 3:00:50 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Don, that was an outstanding post. In a few concise, logical sentences, you made the case for spinco's pongid nature. It's hard to believe you are in the same profession as Dr. Id. Compliments, uf

To: Don Mosher who wrote (28927)	7/27/2000 9:52:15 AM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

If QCOM is a Gorilla, and it has transferred the essential Gorilla properties to SPINCO, then SPINCO is a Gorilla. In more abstract terms the form is: If Q implies G, and if S equals Q, then S is a G. Don, the spinoff is not abstract. There are many nuances to the reality that are not shown in simple deductive reasoning. To give a riduclous example, if SPINCO gives the IPR away that QCOM passes to it, then SPINCO no longer possesses the strengths of that IPR. In between giving it away and selling rights in the same way QCOM does, lies placing that IPR into pools. The whole discussion here is how does x-licensing affect SPINCO's potential Gorilla or Royalty status. We already determined that x-licensing would be very bad for QCOM with respect to its control of IPR. Following your reasoning, x-licensing will be very bad for SPINCO with respect to its control of IPR. But we know that compromise is required. One result of that compromise is that SPINCO becomes a royalty play.