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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dexter Lives On who wrote (120286)	6/13/2002 12:46:22 AM
From: techlvr	Respond to of 152472

Time will tell. But to me the article is clear in stating that for wireless communication purposes OFDM will use and needs CDMA, in one and/or two formats. This is a technology in the early stages and won't be available for a long time. Still, when ready (if ever), Qcom will own some significant part of the necessary guts. The rights to use those parts are Qcom's to barter. To the thread as a whole, who are the significant patent contributors to OFDM so far?

To: Dexter Lives On who wrote (120286)	6/13/2002 2:45:17 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>> It doesn't change the fact that QCOM's royalty rates are high and nobody is willing/able to pay them. If I've got the numbers right, qcom's rates for cdma are much lower than the cumulative rake of the gsm patent holders, Rob. Why didn't that hold gsm back?

To: Dexter Lives On who wrote (120286)	6/13/2002 8:02:50 AM
From: qveauriche	Respond to of 152472

Rob-Why the visceral reaction to the suggestion that you may have posted something with positive implications for QCOM? After all, you are engaged in a dispassionate and objective search for the truth concerning this company, aren't you? As opposed to actively searching for and posting every negative article and ignoring the rest,and intentionally giving the strongest negative interpretation possible to every piece of news to come out. I've always thought of you as one who is able to see the terrible truth about QCOM because you were an enlightened and objective fellow shorn of the biases that afflict the rest of us. As such, I think you could readily discern the positive implications for QCOM of a report that even the likes of NTT is pursuing OFDM in a mobile environment only by marrying the technology with CDMA. Especially since we had come to believe from numerous posts of yours that CDMA/QCOM had no place at the table for 4G, and that 4g networks would be up and running by next week. I know that all the Euro carriers will be thrilled to learn this. You know, the ones you told us about earlier yesterday who said that they were going to skip 3g altogether and go straight to 4g (now thats a way to preserve GSM world domination, don't you think?). Or perhaps none of this matters because, as you have advised us, fixed wireless is going to shunt mobile to the periphery in any event. But we forge on. And I do appreciate you setting me straight on this 1X thing. All this time, I thought that consumer acceptance was more important than terminology. I mean, what really matters is not that its wildly popular wherever its been introduced. What really matters is that its not 3g. And as far as its Asian popularity relative to FOMA, silly me. It never occurred to me that annoyance at non-existent battery life, obtuse operating instructions, routinely dropped connections, and limited applications were uniquely Asian cultural traits. And can you believe all these anecdotal reports about the strong uptake that Verizon is experiencing with 1X, despite the fact that they are using the most primitive 1X phone models on the market? What a croc! * * * * * * Take it in stride, Rob. Just having a little fun, and only with painful recognition that you've been dead on about the stock performance.... So far.