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(QCOM) -> SpinCo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: waverider who wrote (5)	7/26/2000 4:55:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 172

>> So the spin off company makes chips and sells them to other companies for their phone Despite what Jacobs said yesterday, I think the reality of the situation will be that SpinCo pays royalty to QCOM and this royalty will be factored into the price of the chips SpinCo sells onto (say) NOK. SpinCo will seeded with 'enough' QCOM IPR to allow it to play in the WCDMA patent pool (something Jacobs said QCOM would never do). This rather neat solution allows QCOM to participate in WCDMA by proxy, while continueing to promote CDMA2000 (a standard it controls). Any direct promotion of UMTS-WCDMA by QCOM would be quite damaging to CDMA2000, as US network operators might then decide to roll out UMTS for 3G, rather than CDMA2000 IMHO of course w.

To: waverider who wrote (5)	7/27/2000 1:12:01 AM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 172

I'll take a crack at addressing the confusion; hopefully I won't make it worse. 1. So the spin off company makes chips and sells them to other companies for their phones, whatever. OK so far. 2. QCOM has the IP and the chip buyers send QCOM a check as well for the royalties? I get this because the spin off doesn't pay royalties to QCOM because they are sharing the patents...that's what Jacobs said, right? As I understand it, all manufacturers of CDMA enabled devices will need a royalty-bearing agreement with QCOM because QCOM will continue to hold essential patents without which no CDMA unit can work. 3. The spin off makes all sorts of cross licensing deals to make multimode chips, whatever...they sell them, pay off some of the GSM/WCDMA patent people and QCOM gets a check from WHO for their IP royalties? If Spinco makes cross-licensing deals I would expect they do not need to pay royalties because in exchange for the license (to GSM/W-CDMA IPR) they received, they gave a license to the cross-licensee for the CDMA stuff they control the IPR to (sorry the wording is a little clunky). Thsi assumes the cross-licensee is also a wirelss device manufacturer and needs CDMA IPR. (If not a manufacturer, yes Spinco woudl pay for the IPR they needed.) QCOM still gets its royalty as per 2. above. Nothing in the cross license deal touches the basic license CDMA manufacturers will need to get from QCOM. 4. >>>>(2) Eliminates Customer/Licensee Conflicts. As both a licensor and ASIC supplier, QCOM's two businesses are also in conflict. As more independent entities, this potential conflict is reduced. Customers can go to Spinco for chips and to Qualcomm for royalties.<<<< Reason this is so is that ASIC group (now Spinco) needs other IPR (GSM, etc.) for multi-mode phones. Holders of that IPR were trying to use it to get full run of QCOM's essential patents in exchange. Now all they can get is access to the limited essential, and/or necessary, and/or useful patents that will be held by Spinco. The remaining patents stay with QCOM and require a royalty to QCOM to use them (i.e., to be able to sell a working CDMA device). 5. Why would people want to go to Qualcomm for royalties? They may not want to but they will have to. (See 3. and 4. above.)