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: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (37289)	1/1/2001 12:14:52 PM
From: Knight	Respond to of 54805

The net result of QCOM's "Spinco" strategy seems to me to be: Use CDMA2000, pay royalty x to QCOM and no additional CDMA technology is needed. Use WCDMA (or any other ilk of CDMA), pay QCOM royalty x PLUS pay other vendors additional royalties that are required to make WCDMA work. Thus QCOM has ensured that CDMA will always be the cheapest option (in terms of CDMA royalties). Correct? If the above is correct, is there any reason other than inter-company positioning for power (e.g. a technological reason) for vendors to go with WCDMA over CDMA2000? (My impression of WCDMA to date has been that it's CDMA technology with a bunch of extra baggage added on for the purpose of allowing various QCOM competitors to include their own IPR and get in on the royalties and that it provides no compelling technological advantages.) How many wireless manufacturers are out there who don't have any WCDMA IPR? Wouldn't it be to their advantage to support CDMA2000 so they could deal with only one vendor (QCOM) and simultaneously reduce their royalty costs?