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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LarsA who wrote (7489)	10/10/2000 3:04:06 PM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

our buddy tero jumped when he saw: qualcomm.com

To: LarsA who wrote (7489)	10/10/2000 4:02:34 PM
From: Keith Feral	Respond to of 34857

I gained nothing from Tero on the issue of 3G CDMA. His unbalanced view of QCOM was bizarre. On the one hand, he projected QCOM to have the highest upside potential last year. However, he loved to deride QCOM and CDMA with phrases like QCOM's Conundrum in early 1999, just prior to the Ericcson deal. That cross licensing agreement certainly cleared up any issues between QCOM and Ericcson, the ONLY company to oficially challenge QCOM's IPR before the ITU. I think he has done a real disservice to many people on this thread by perpetuating the myth that Nokia has the technology to produce WCDMA on it's own. In private, I cannot imagine that he did not believe that Nokia is required to sign a 3G license for CDMA. How about the allusive chip deal with Nokia and Qualcomm that has been the subject of speculation for so long? Did he ever endorse the possibility that the deal would be mutually benefitial to Nokia since TXN cannot make a CDMA ASIC? Look at Nokia's present lack of market share in the 3 key cDMA markets in the world - Japan, Korea, and the US. In my opinion, Tero's contribution to this thread was meant to conjure some distracting theory that Nokia was the key architect of WCDMA. However, the patents held by QCOM cover the overwhelming majority of all 3G patents for wCDMA and CDMA2000. No one with a brain in their heads could reasonably argue that Nokia will be able to circumvent QCOM's royalties for 3G CDMA.

To: LarsA who wrote (7489)	10/10/2000 10:58:20 PM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

>>Excellent analyst and fun to read - we all had a lot to learn from him, on both sides of the holy wars Yes, he was fun to read.. But sometimes he would get comical with his silly arguments. >>on both sides of the holy wars People like him propagate that crap. There is really no war. It is all in his (and people like him) adolescent mind. What it really is, is just business. And companies making the wrong/right decisions and moves.. best, sam a

To: LarsA who wrote (7489)	10/10/2000 11:46:32 PM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

FWIW I agree too, Tero was the only one with an argument. Now all you have is the qcom groupies (myself included) pushing one side of the discussion. I still think the most important thing wireless investors should know is: qualcomm.com Why would carriers pay more for a lousier system? Only reasons I can think of are: 1. The may get a share of the royalty pie, if people are willing to pay more for an inferior system. 2. Global Roaming. This won't be an issue as GSM/CDMA roaming chipsets become available and carriers begin signing alliances with foriegn firms. Voadaphone should be the first in US CDMA/Euro/China GSM roaming imho. 3. More competition in handsets and infra, GSM's overwhelming "current" market share may lead many to believe that because of the larger market, more vendors will want in. Thing here is, that if 1Xev is the solution, the same thing will happen with 1Xev licensees. 4. Government mandates. These stifle competition in the long run. There is a big risk to tech inovation if a better technology comes along somewhere else. Take CDMA for instance. And yes Korea took a HUGE risk with CDMA, but it is looking good. Korea is not however mandating CDMA2000 or WCDMA on the most part. Caxton