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: carranza2 who wrote (11809)	5/22/2001 10:27:38 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

"..I believe that the Q will ultimately be a big player in WCDMA, and possibly may profitably pluck the Cabal's WCDMA chestnuts out of the fire..." ---------- I believe Q could as well - for lack of one ingredient. A stable UMTS specification. Precisely what specifications will Q design to? With future, profoundly tardy testing of Release 4, and the impending avalanche of corrections and modifications imminent over the next many years, when will such an animal exist? Aside from political purposes, Release 4 is years from stability and true completion. Pragmatically, even confirmation of its fundamental viability rests in the future..

To: carranza2 who wrote (11809)	5/22/2001 12:00:12 PM
From: Mika Kukkanen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

One foot in the mouth or is it in the grave? I am throwing this out there for discussion (cause I am bored). Now if Qcom is going to be the 'tour de force' in WCDMA I take it that means they also be supplying chips? If so then to implement the full WCDMA specs will mean the royalty rate "profit" will drop due to licensing IPR from other companies, no matter what Dr I J says. It's just a question on how IJ and Qcom spin it. "The royalty rate will remain the same" is true, but the problem is they will have to pay for other's IPR. Interesting... I apologise for an OFF-TOPIC post...so let's take the Qcom discussion back to where it belongs (on the Qcom threads).

To: carranza2 who wrote (11809)	5/22/2001 4:09:09 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

ITU, IMO, functions according to basic free market, game theories, where every participant tries to figure out as many steps of all the other as possible (and unlike chess there is much still unknown, lots of players and no end game) Those who are capable of cooperation gain, those who are not can always try to use the weapon of disrupting the process. For all parts to agree, support the final solution, no one party can be a total winner, all have to start from a somewhat, acceptable to all, equal position. If not, they will, just like kids and QCOM, not participate and can go playing alone on their own yard. What makes it possible is that it is a question of telecommunication, mostly global, so isolationists will, by their own free will, be cut off. I believe there are no, or very few, examples of one company or group, even with a "perfect" solution, who the others would agree to support as a standard. Instead the agreement comes from at least two mechanisms. - the "perfect" solution is improved or adapted - compromises are made which place all in a more similar situation. No dictators need apply... Ilmarinen PS. It is interesting that even local,"non global" standards like cable modems, etc, which do not have to connect half way around the globe, just a couple of point-to-point local miles or feet, like DSL, WLAN,etc, still need the global standards to produce economy of scales and competition.. the other global factor through global trade. Few voluntarily sign a multigenerational slave contract, competing second sources are a must, except for those who see no other solution. An operators, like elephants, have huge, long term investments and memories for those who mainly disrupt the process without contributing and delivering constructively, because the operators pay the bill.