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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mightylakers who wrote (12220)	6/29/2001 12:59:49 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196971

ML In addition you always enhance the feature of your chips to maintain the edge over the others. That's what happened in IS-95, and that's what Q is striving for in WCDMA. But, when you 'define' the standard, and it's evolution.. Like Qualcomm has with IS-95A/B/2000/HDR etc. Then you have an inherent large lead time in the ASIC development process. Which gives you a large 'time to market' advantage.. In infrastructure, and UT Asics. When you can deliver Asic's 6 months earlier than your competitor, then the potential customers for these ASICS will tend to chose your ASIC's Because they also offer a time to market advantage for their products. In WCDMA.. Qualcomm may not enjoy this advantage!! Becuase they will neither define the evolution of the protocol", nor enjoy the ability to Administer the Entitlement of the Technology.. If Qualcomm had held out with their original demands for a single worldwide standard based on their CDMA Methodologies.. Then Qualcomm would have continued to enjoy the position of Leadership.. At this point.. They just become another manufacture, with excellent skill sets in CDMA Methodologies.. And I am sure Qualcomm will capture a nice share of the WCDMA Asic Marketplace! But, they will not enjoy the Power and Administrative Rights (which transferred into market dominance) they enjoyed with IS-95 and it's variants. IMO, PCSTEL

To: mightylakers who wrote (12220)	6/29/2001 1:36:04 PM
From: ggamer	Respond to of 196971

<<<That is why I contend that WCDMA has weakened Qualcomm IPR position.. Qualcomm no longer controls Administration of Technology Entitlement>>> Mightylakers I think you are wasting your time answering posters like the one above. I would say that half of the 12,000 posts here and 100,000 in the other QCOM thread deals with this specific issue. Either you trust the QCOM management or you trust the European who are currently in a sinking mode while thinking that they will once again prevail in the new wireless world. It think that people on this thread are tired of reading about this specific subject day in and day out. In my opinion we have another 8 to 12 months before we find out who pays who how much royalty and who will dominate the ASIC market for 3G. Until then place your bets and forget about it. My money is on the small company in San Diego who brought down the Mau and Ghandi kids (about 40% of the worlds population) to its knees this year. GGamer QCOM, Multiple Flavored Toll Gates to 3G Spinco, Multiple Flavored Engines to 3G BREW, Multiple Flavored Windows to 3G Asians, Multiple Flavored Plastics to 3G ERIC/LU/NT, Multiple Flavored Antennas to 3G Nokia, Naked and Left Behind in 2G and looking for GPRS/EDGE for some much needed heat

To: mightylakers who wrote (12220)	6/29/2001 2:48:20 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196971

ML Q also can not control the entitlement in CDMA2000, because it also need to conform the ITU guideline in IPR, i.e. fair, reasonable and non-discrimitive. CDMA2000 or WCDMA, they are both 3G standards therefore you can't say the principal only applies to WCDMA. True. Like I stated in my post below.. Standardization lends itself to the reduction in Qualcomm's overall power, and levels the "time-to-market" advantage that Qualcomm has enjoyed in the past.. There are pluses and minuses involved for all companies.. However, like we have discussed before.. The doctrine of standardization state " fair, reasonable and non-discrimitive", yet everyone continues to discuss the mantra of "He who comes late to the party.. PAYS MORE!!" I believe that would be considered unfair, unreasonable, and prejudiced discriminatory in nature to the companies that are just now wanting to enjoin 3G CDMA development.. Like Nokia's WCDMA Infrastructure Division.. After all.. It's a new product line for them... <vbg> PCSTEL