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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (52910)	11/6/2002 5:20:06 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>> The W-CDMA Gang of Four hold a 'significant number' of relevant patents, but it's unclear if it can bypass Qualcomm IP altogether. Seems clear to me. Haven't they already conceded that they can't bypass Q IP by licensing it? >> The intention is to set a benchmark for all patent holders of the W-CDMA technology to achieve fair and reasonable royalty rates. Call me cynical, but I suspect the intention is to keep potential wcdma carriers from bolting until a successful implementation of wcdma can be pulled off. I expect cdma2000 to pick up some serious market share this quarter, and cdma carriers to show strong improvement in their p&ls while gsm/tdma carriers continue their slide. >> Qualcomm is historically notorious for usurious royalty fees, but this does not appear to apply, so far as cdma2000 is concerned - with the company setting royalty rates at 5-6 per cent of equipment costs. Huh? I'd like to see some examples. uf

To: Eric L who wrote (52910)	11/6/2002 5:43:44 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

Eric, Qualcomm had no control, has no control of 3GSM WCDMA, so there is none to wrest. I disagree. It's not control of an architecture, but it is control of markets. Nobody is entirely in control of a market, but to say Qualcomm has no control whatsoever doesn't make sense to me. The whole reason the consortium is reducing royalties is to increase their chances of getting their preferred technologies adopted. And that leads to ... They didn't make a decision to "reduce" royalties. They didn't agree to keep their royalty rates to 5% when the idea was first proposed. Now they supposedly have agreed. To me, that's a reduction. (Of course, I have no idea if anything in the media piece I mentioned is accurate.) --Mike Buckley

To: Eric L who wrote (52910)	11/6/2002 5:44:41 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

They didn't make a decision to "reduce" royalties. Are you saying that if CDMA2000 had never been developed that these companies would be charging the same royalty rate that they are now planning? If so, I am going to have to disagree. The primary holders of W-CDMA IPR would have been more than willing to cross-license each other but they would then have gone out and charged all the other players a much higher royalty rate than they are currently planning. Nokia and Ericsson would love to be able to keep the primary players in W-CDMA the same as in GSM. The royalty rates need to stay low for the primary players (to allow a varied market to develop) but after that there isnt much need to have 15-20 W-CDMA manufacturers. Much better for these companies (excepting Docomo) to limit the number of competitors. The fact that CDMA2000 requires a 5% royalty rate (I'll believe today's comments when companies start to sign up), puts a cap on what W-CDMA can charge. Slacker