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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: masa who wrote (6779)	8/5/2004 12:33:17 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 12247

Re : (the "great") Texas Instruments (TI) and the possibility that they (TI) might not pay Qualcomm the same royalties that a lot of other entities pay to Qualcomm -- (Let's not forget that it was TI's blabbermouth-osity that precipitated the whole legal mess they (TI) are in right now (against "resistance is futile" Qualcomm)) ... Part of your comments are predicated on the concept that TI will find customers "out there" who want to purchase TI chips. Have you ever seen any of the Qualcomm presentations where Qualcomm shows that chips manufactured by Qualcomm (as opposed to everyone else) (which includes TI) are : smaller in physical size (supposedly very important in the design of handsets) use less power (very important for battery considerations) and do "good stuff" relating to processing and manipulating of things (I never understand this stuff ...) *************************************************** All evidence (so far) (according to Wall Street "research" reports) regarding the response to TI trying to "take the world by storm" (with its CDMA chips) is a big yawn. Jon.

To: masa who wrote (6779)	8/5/2004 2:37:34 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 12247

For years, they have been using "pro forma" accounting, and it hides some bad business decisions they have made. I seriously challenge you to find tech companies that provide a more detailed breakdown of their businesses on the day earnings are released. They provide both a pro-forma and GAAP number and it is VERY easy to figure out where the difference are. TI has gone to a GAAP only number and as a long-time investor in that company, I can tell you that it has made my job as an investor harder. Also, how many companies file the 10Q on the day that earnings are released? You can get a detailed breakdown of cashflows pretty much immediately rather than waiting a couple of weeks like most other companies. Qualcomm isnt perfect, but the data provided to shareholders has improved significantly over the years and is now probably the best among the companies that I follow. Also, I don't know (officially) anything about IPR settlement between TI and Qualcomm, but let's say, I have been involved in some things (the people I talk to are not allowed to tell me), but I have got a feeling that TI is not going to pay ANY royalties to Qualcomm if they sell any CDMA or WCDMA chips (of course it is up to TI to prove that they can do it). I can imagine that, after all, TI invented the IC, and they have lots of IPR in that area. The speculation at the time of the license was that TI received a royalty-free cross-license. This was later confirmed by TI....which was a violation of the non-disclosure agreement. Qualcomm is never going to give confirmation one way or another on this subject. Just another example is GSM. You can see suddenly GSM/GPRS chips in Qualcomm's roadmaps, a lot of them. Do you think Qualcomm is very strong in that area. No. GSM IPR is pretty much owned by companies like Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia and Siemens. Do you think those companies give it to Qualcomm for free? The same with WCDMA: DoCoMo, NEC, Panasonic, Nokia, Ericsson etc. have IPR there Qualcomm does not own. Do you think Qualcomm gets it for nothing? Well, I am sure that you know Qualcomm's stance. They threatened to spin off their chip making division into a separate company and give them enough CDMA patents for cross-licenses....while the parent patent company would still have enough CDMA patents to collect royalties. Here is what Qualcomm has to say on the subject. edgar-online.com Our CDMA license agreements generally provide cross-licenses to us to use certain of our licensees’ technology to manufacture and sell certain CDMA products (e.g. CDMA application specific integrated circuits or ASICs, subscriber units and/or infrastructure equipment). In most cases, our use of our licensees’ technology is royalty free. However, under some of the licenses, if we incorporate certain of the licensed technology into certain of our products, we are obligated to pay royalties on the sale of such products. So, some licenses are royalty free while they have to pay for some others....so what? If they pay 5% on the sale of every W-CDMA/GSM chipset and collect 5% on the sale of every handset, they are going to make a boatload of money. At a minimum, they are likely to be paying Docomo since they arent a manufacturer. By no means do I think Qualcomm is completely honest. Sometimes they shade the truth to make the company look better (or in the case of the much discussed on-time deliviries, they are flat-out wrong). As I said at the beginning of the post, I would love to hear which tech companies (particularly wireless) provide you with a better information. Slacker

To: masa who wrote (6779)	8/5/2004 11:09:37 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 12247

Masa, the "information" you provide [a lot of which is simply erroneous] is very old news to those of us who follow these things closely. Much of it has been disproven. We knew about the TI royalty deal eons ago; it seems that Q and TI entered into mutual royalty-free cross licenses under which TI got access to Q's CDMA IPR and Q got access to TI's DSP IPR. Nothing new there. The deal with Nokia allowing it to use Q IPR for WCDMA infra almost surely gave Q all the GSM and GPRS IPR it needs. It was the reason Spinco was put on ice. The signals you receive have been analyzed to death in these forums by many knowledgeable people.

To: masa who wrote (6779)	8/5/2004 10:16:14 PM
From: Whatnot	Respond to of 12247

Masa, you are certainly welcome to present your opinions on this thread but I have to tell you as an investor in QCOM for many years, most of what you are saying has been totally debunked. I can well remember when the "CDMA will not work" crowd was calling Dr. J a snake oil salesman. Events have very clearly played towards the Q and against the naysayers. Everyone who claimed that Qualcomm would not win the royalty battles over WCDMA was proved wrong. I challenge you to come up with one specific instant where Qualcomm's management was not honest. Please be specific. I challenge you on what you call 'their bad decisions'. They have a balance sheet which is be the envy of most companies, a stock price that has done very well compared to most S&P 500 stocks this year and their dividend has grown to where it almost significant. Regards