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: Getch who wrote (96795)	4/4/2001 11:28:06 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Getch: "QCOM is spinning off its chip making division, known as Spinco for now. QCOM classic will be a straight IPR company (not unlike IDC, i guess, with some small differences). Spinco will be given enough patents to be able to cross-license for the additional patents that it needs with the other companies that produce products and need Spinco patents." Thanks for the education on QCOM.. However, as several of the posters around here can tell you.. I was an investor in QCOM probably before you knew who or what QCOM and CDMA were.. My first investment in QCOM was in 1996.. I live in Del Mar.. Many of my neighbors work for Qualcomm.. First of all.. IMO.. SpicCo is a bad decision.. and will probably never happen.. I mean.. What kind of P/E ratio does a semi-conductor company achieve in this day and age.. Let's see.. INTC has a 16 P/E.. That would value SpinCo with a low single digit Billion Dollar Market Cap.. Whereas currently.. It enjoys a much higher P/E ratio combined with Q Classic as you call it.. SpinCo is a bad idea.. "What is not clear is what will happen with the IPR holding companies that do not need to cross-license because they do not produce any products. QCOM, IDC, DoCoMo come to mind." That is correct. And I don't think IDCC would provide QCOM with the ability to re-license the IPR that IDCC holds that QCOM will require.. In other words.. Just because QCOM will have to acquire certain IPR for W-CDMA from non-manufacture vendors for the production of W-CDMA Asics.. I don't think QCOM will be able to re-license that IPR onto it's (QCOM) licensee's. Hence, Matsushita did no have access to those W-CDMA centric IPR via it's QCOM license.. So it had to pay a seperate license fee and royalty.. Same goes for QCOM or any other manufacture of W-CDMA centric equipment.. It appears QCOM will have to pay IDCC and other W-CDMA (non-manufacture) IPR holders on going royalty payments for QCOM produced W-CDMA Asics.. "W-CDMA IPR is going to be massively confusing, and massively expensive. As no formal standard has yet been set for W-CDMA, these lengthy discussions have not even begun. " Well, Since Matsushita is starting to deliver W-CDMA terminals (DoCoMo version) next month.. And Matsushita just signed for W-CDMA IPR with IDCC.. Then it appears that "at least for the DoCoMo version" That the IPR issues are becoming resolved in a time frame some what earlier than IJ's 2003 or 2004 time frame.. PCSTEL