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: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (10549)	4/13/2001 4:19:25 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

So what is your beloved NOK going to do? seems to me they are the fly at this point:) eom

To: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (10549)	4/13/2001 4:35:08 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

C'mon, Ilmarinen, the GSM Cabal is far worse than Q, charging much more than 5% for its IPR. Everything you say about Q could be said about the Cabal, in spades. The GSM cross-licensing arrangement is a cruel hoax designed to keep the Cabal in juicy royalties. The problem, of course, is that 3G is a CDMA-based standard and the Cabal-iers who have no significant WCDMA IPR will in due time be shut out of the royalty trough. It is, as you are no doubt aware, a source of essentially cost-free profits. Greed and envy on the part of the Cabal-iers are probably present in equal parts. Why couldn't they have invented that? Why can't they seem to get it right when they try to do it on their own? The frustration and anger are almost palpable. Naturally, not many GSM IPR holders like what's happening, but you will admit that having more than 50 or so 3G licensees speaks volumes for Q's strong position. They may not like it, but they had a choice and chose to license with Q. That's strong! If Q is a fly in the ointment, the Cabal-iers without any significant WCDMA IPR are buzzards at the jar.

To: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (10549)	4/13/2001 4:49:22 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

The history of standards and operators living with these standards is littered with companies trying to cash on equipment which isn't compatible. The QCOM trick of SpinCO is exactly what the operators are most pixxed about, the global, fat cat, tax collector and the independent no-nothing village idiot. Are you saying that the GSM Cabalistas don't collect royalties which exceed those which Q charges for CDMAOne and plans to charge for 3G AF-CDMA? [AF=AnyFlavor]. All of your complaints about Q seem to me to be equally applicable to the Cabalistas, and then some. I wouldn't call the only company which has announced inter-operable chestnut-from-the-fire-pulling GSM/WCDMA/CDMA2000 ASICs a village idiot. We'll see in time who delivers. I put my money on Q. As far as attempts at cashing in on equipment which is not standards-compatible, seems that the only company that has done that recently is Nokia. Ask Verizon, they'll tell you.

To: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (10549)	4/14/2001 8:35:00 PM
From: S100	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

"The QCOM trick of SpinCO is exactly what the operators are most pixxed about" Why would the operators care? Nokia should be one that does? The Nok CDMA R and D parking lot seems to indicate that perhaps the big R and D effort is over. Perhaps QCOM can buy it in a year and put a small part of Spinco in there ;-) July 2000 no free space. Now ? y42.photos.yahoo.com "Few, if any, operators would not agree that something like QCOM (disruptive technologies) should not happen again, and SpinCo is a joke." I thought CDMA increased the capacity of the networks at a lower cost? Don't they like that? Harder to adjust the system but works better when right. No freq reuse plan. MSM, CSM and S/W designed and tested together, works right out of the box. No nasty surprises?