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: slacker711 who wrote (13188)	7/24/2001 10:32:28 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196607

"It seems to me that they should have gone through with the spin..." ---------- That was my view as well. I would have insisted yesterday that the spin was a go. Perhaps there are reasons (operational, IP, association over time - after the 5 year IP transfer agreement) that made spin less attractive if not required. Regarding your earlier point, I'd infer that potential IP issues regarding 1xevdv were addressed in license agreements with NOK, etc.... Adversarial vendors have been mudding around in 3GPP2 for some time and will only increase... Can't see how this prospect would slip through the cracks...

To: slacker711 who wrote (13188)	7/24/2001 6:00:55 PM
From: JustLearning	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196607

IMO, I am pleased that they did not go through with the spin-off: a) As a separate company, I think Spinco could (would most likely) have been bought out. If the the buyer was someone like Intel (for example); we would not be able to invest in a pure CDMA chip company anyway. b) IMO, the companies together (Classic and Spinco) can generate more IPRs than as independent entities. If Nokia or someone else has IPRs in IxEV-DV, they can re-visit the spinoff; hopefully with an even stronger set of IPRs for each company. my two cents.