To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (13620 ) 7/12/2001 5:36:23 PM From: Eric L Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 34857 Caxton, << Puck- Seriously, Nokia lies. Business is Business but lying is lying. >> When Qualcomm handed out superbly constructed promotional material at CTIA in New Orleans in February 1995 to live carrier prospects bidding in A&B Block stating in writing (a copy sitting beside me) that PCS-1900 (GSM-1900) would be late and IS95A CDMA-1900 would be ready when they secured licenses, and although GSM worked, it had never been applied in 1900 MHz spectrum (all this VERY reminiscent of the recent "independent study" paid for by CDG and authored by Herschel Shosteck and Girl Jane) ...Was Qualcomm lying when they said that in writing to the world? I have a lot more questions of this type based on my Qualcomm watch over the years, but lets start with that one."Business is Business but lying is lying" In mid-November 2000, Qualcomm elected to launch a "marketing campaign" for a non-commercialized product designated 1xEV-DO, based on FUD, and maybe some FUDD tossed in for good measure. Their direct target was a competitive variation of technology, commonly referred to as WCDMA. What I find odd about this, is their then valuation, and their current valuation, is highly tied to the success of WCDMA. Qualcomm has expunged a lot of the original material (presentations and webcasts) related to the original "marketing" campaign, and cleaned up some of the former material and recycled it into the new "Roadshow". It is a little unusual to remove (or "relocate") material of this type this quickly from a corporate website. Do you consider this removal or relocation of material simply normal housecleaning, or is it an attempt to remove an audit trail that would perpetuate a credibility gap in the wireless public's perception of Qualcomm? Let me make it very clear that in no way do I condone Nokia's response in kind (Fight FUD with FUD) to Qualcomm's FUD Filled "marketing" campaign. Then again, I'm not Nokia's marketing director. If I was, however, one of the tactics I would have considered, would in fact be to respond in kind and Fight FUD with FUD. One thing I would never consider however, would be to Fight FUD and FUDD with FUDD. You have been very active on this thread and others lately so I am hopeful you have time to respond to these questions. I will apologize in advance for not being able to respond as quickly as I might otherwise, because of day job obligations. I might add that, I have not taken the time to query Qualcomm's IR department on the removal of material, nor have I had time to query Nokia's IR group. I do plan to budget some time to do so, and I do have some questions for Mr. Seybold whose newsletter I suscribe (as something of a replacement - budget wise - for the Gilder letter I used to subscribe). - Eric -