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: johnzhang who wrote (30833)	8/31/2000 10:09:05 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Respond to of 54805

I'm not as sure as you what QCOM should do but I certainly agree with you that all the problems are political and legal. I don't think ANYBODY, especially the posters to this thread and especially Gilder, need repeat how wonderful is QCOM's technology. It's all a matter of crime, as I see it. It's inconceivable to me that NTT DoCoMo intends to honour QCOM's patents and pay any royalty. They are promising WCDMA in May and they haven't breathed a word about payments to QCOM. If they intended to license QCOM's patents and get various instructions from QCOM they surely would have done it some time ago for a facility which is scheduled for May 2001. Nokia has the same intention to steal the CDMA technology and not pay any royalties but AFAIK they don't yet have a date for launching any W"CDMA". Like Dancelot I am staying away from QCOM until and unless one of those would be crooks capitulates. It's only interesting to a telephony engineer that CDMA will dominate in 2005 or 2007. The important question to an investor is will it be paid for.

To: johnzhang who wrote (30833)	8/31/2000 10:16:25 PM
From: Rick	Respond to of 54805

Also, when the suit is filed, Qualcomm should publicly state that it will NEVER license either Nokia or NTT DoCoMo after the suit is won. They should publicly state they will NEVER license both. Only the first one to give in wins! - Fred

To: johnzhang who wrote (30833)	8/31/2000 10:45:17 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

John, << Qualcomm should publicly state that it will NEVER license either Nokia or NTT DoCoMo after the suit is won. >> Thanks for posting that delightful piece. Glad to know the GSM'ers didn't invent FUD. - Eric -

To: johnzhang who wrote (30833)	9/1/2000 12:21:23 AM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 54805

re. QCOM and time Well I share your view that wrt 3G "the sooner the better" for QCOM. That's why, when I returned from a recent trip, item 1 on my agenda was to check the price for the German (Deutsch) spectrum auctions. I was worried the price might be similar to the Dutch, but to my relief the price was more close to the English. Soon after the English auctions, Nokia loudly complained about the sky high price. Many thought this was because as an infrastructure supplier, they were concerned about funds being left for the purchase of their toys. I, however, believed there was a different (or at the least an additional) reason. The high price was likely to interfere with their 3G delay strategy as carriers would be less likely to wait with such expensive spectrum. I subscribe to your Farnsworth/Sarnoff analogy and therefore (in this view) anything that speeds up 3G is an anathema to Nokia. This, to me, is the whole of Nokia's and NTT DoCoMo's strategy, buy time in the chance you can work around Qualcomm. While I agree with you about Nokia, DoCoMo is another matter. Since they seem to be rushing ahead with deployment, how does this dovetail with your thesis? Any clarification will be appreciated. Edit. Rereading your post I see you were quoting Callisto. Any insight wrt to DoCoMo would still be helpful. lurqer

To: johnzhang who wrote (30833)	9/1/2000 12:49:06 PM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 54805

john, the author had me going on the RCA color tv thing until he said: "He made it with a good RCA-biased twist. It would only be backwards compatible to RCA black-and-white television. Any other black-and-white sets would need a $100 RCA adapter to decode the signal." My family had a non-RCA b/w tv and we were watching color tv shows on NBC in black and white without an adaptor. I question the authors crediblity now.

To: johnzhang who wrote (30833)	9/2/2000 11:14:52 AM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Qualcomm needs to sue both now to stop their efforts. Do not be a nerd like Farnsworth and just let them walk over you in the feeble chance they will license from you. Also, when the suit is filed, Qualcomm should publicly state that it will NEVER license either Nokia or NTT DoCoMo after the suit is won. This is in effect what I believe that Rambus is doing. They have stated that they will not license to anyone who brings litigation against their patents. Micron is playing a very dangerous game, in that if Ramhus patents are upheld and they win the suit, they've said that they won't license RDRAM to Micron. Dr.Id@bettingonbothprevailing.com

To: johnzhang who wrote (30833)	9/2/2000 1:25:48 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

John, that was a fascinating piece by Callisto, but even if we take his/her recounting of the Farnsworth/RCA incident at face value, I don't think there is a parallel to the current qcom/Nokia/ntt situation. Nokia and its friends were unable to suppress the commercialization of cdma, and unlike the unfortunate Farnsworth, qcom is far from resource and partner limited. As a result, qcom's success will be based on the availability, performance, and cost effectiveness of its approach to 3G systems vs. the alternatives. Qualcomm has already defended itself in court and prevailed in actions against the GSMers, and Dr. J. has stated that he will continue to vigorously defend his ipr. But since there have been no products introduced that infringe on qcom's patent portfolio to date, I don't perceive a basis for legal action. I'd appreciate it if one of our thread lawyers would comment on that opinion. And while it might be satisfying for Qualcomm to threaten it's adversaries with a lock out from their technology, as Rambus has, massive licensing revenue from Nokia and NTT for 3G is a far more attractive reward then revenge. jmho, uf