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

To: marginmike who wrote (90862)	12/28/2000 10:17:02 AM
From: limtex	Respond to of 152472

mm - he doesn't like QCOM very much and he has complained about the US as well. He doesn't seem to be a happy camper. best regards, L

To: marginmike who wrote (90862)	12/28/2000 10:41:48 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Marginmike, you've seem to have attracted the lunatic element to you today. I'm amazed that you even bother to respond to Rajala, the self-styled cosmopolite who likes American girls because they shave their legs. You are a better man than me. I don't bother with the crazies. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with your opinion that we will have a nasty recession in '01, but I respect your thinking and I certainly take what you have to say in developing my own ideas. By the way, you might find the following board stimulating. Has excellent macro-economic discussions by non-techies, a neglected group. Subject 12099

To: marginmike who wrote (90862)	12/28/2000 12:25:54 PM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

What IPR contracts are you talking about marginmike, my friend? The contracts that state that OEMs pay the same IPR to Q with WCDMA as with CDMA2000? Lets have a critical look at that. 1) if you did not pay before, sign it and you commit to… nothing. N, S, A could have signed it losing nothing. 2) If they sign a licensing contract about the patent pool , and they end up not using it (not as hypothetical as you may think), do they have to pay? Depends on the contract, normally multiply with the sweet FA factor. 3) Why would such a contract be attractive for some OEMs if there is a possibility you might be able to do without the Q´s IPR anyway? I personally recommend everyone to sign it – if they have to use the patents, they have the right to do so, if not... (again, multiply with the sweet FA factor) 4) the original WCDMA designers have not signed the IPR deal apart from E, who got it with the infra purchase. Why not? This is what everyone should be discussing. Well, I think its time someone showed the light. As usual, its going to be smartest one on the thread (myself): because they think they do not need them. How do they know? Well they wrote the standard for starters. As for MITI certifying 1500 Q´s global IPRs to be payable, that´s like diamondhead certifying China deals. Even if they had such a mandate, which they don´t, how would they know what the other mfgs have in their labs? Its application vs. patent, case-by-case. Q is not the only one with IPR claims to WCDMA. Others have many as well, some experts view E´s portfolio strongest. Stop shaving your legs and check out the P/E of E and compare that to Q´s. Otherwise you might end up changing your name to marginalmike. - rajala