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: Scott Zion who wrote (2089)	8/10/2000 2:58:27 AM
From: tradeyourstocks	Respond to of 197031

Scott, thanks for digging up the 3G3P article. It confirms what many have said on this board. Qualcomm holds the keys to all 3G CDMA. Until Q's essential patents are "bypassed", I just don't see the situation changing. Now that Qualcomm has wet Europe's appetite for CDMA, it seems obvious that Q's plan is to move full speed ahead with the development of both CDMA2000 and WCDMA. The spinoff makes it easier for this to occur. I hope my observation is correct since I really don't like the prospect of a long and drawn out war between the two standards. MicroE

To: Scott Zion who wrote (2089)	8/10/2000 6:19:45 AM
From: limtex	Respond to of 197031

SZ - Serge Raes, director of business development at the 3G3P, says the partnership wants to reduce overall royalty payments because of the high cost required for infrastructure investment – anything from US$4 billion to US$7 billion for a large European country, depending on who you listen to. “The business case for 3G is not too good, and some companies may doubt they can get a decent return on their investment. If royalties are high, they may even review their decision to enter the 3G market,” says Raes Excuse me but who asked these great businessmen to go participate in a free auction and end up with their bids paying the Britsh Government nearly $40bn for 3G licenses? They should have thought about "decent return on their investment" then, not now. Best regards, L