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: Puck who wrote (7778)	10/20/2000 12:23:45 AM
From: Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Does not some international standards body governing WCDMA prescribe licensing ETSI governs WCDMA, mostly (there are other important players, like 3GPP). The only licensing requirement that ETSI places on its contributors is that they make their licenses available to all who want them on a fair basis - no selling to one manufacturer and not to another or charging one manufacturer more than another. Nokia has had CDMA licenses for handsets for quite a while. Qualcomm has a web page showing all the licensees, including Nokia. Nokia couldn't have sold the original 6195 without those licenses. Nokia has only recently developed a significant infrastructure business, and before that there was no need for infrastructure licenses. Of course, the licensing issues are different for CDMA2000 and WCDMA. The QCOM'rs on this board, from some reason, insist on making a mountain out of a molehill. And just to keep the pot stirred - as for China, I think that's still an open question - not so much for which technology they'll use but how much they'll actually spend on it.

To: Puck who wrote (7778)	10/20/2000 9:30:14 AM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Puck- I assume Nok delays formally signing a 3G license with Qualcomm for two strategic reasons: 1) It delays the validation and complete capitulation that everyone who used CDMA will have to pay Qualcomm royalties. The primary benefit to Nokia is it delays the inevitable migration to cdma. For Nokia, the longer they delay cdma, the more they can milk out of their current customer base. They also figure that they have a good shot at the GSM/CDMA conversion infra/handset market so the bigger their GSM base when this starts the better for Nokia. 2) Nokia believes they can hold out for a lower royalty rate. The risk for Nokia is that the longer they stay out of the CDMA market, the more they risk falling behind other CDMA infra and handset manufacturers. Just look at what happend to Mot when the world went from analog to digital. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that Nok will become a dominant supplier of high Quality cdma chipsets. The reasons are: 1) they can't seems to make a chip that competes with Q's chips, 2) they are not licensed for 1X (and are no where near making a 1X chip anyway), 2) they are not licensed to sell chips to others (they can only use them in their own products), and if they do sign up for a 3G license they probably wouldn't be licensed to sell those chips to others anyway. CDMA is disrupting the wireless market and will disrupt it further, and if Nok waits to long to get in big, they will be left in the dust. Caxton