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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (1726)	10/28/2005 10:27:43 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218175

They learned with Brazil!!! "charging excessive and disproportionate royalties," Brazil tell the pharmaceuticals that charges too much money for the medicine to drop the prices else we make genericals. Brazil gets discount on AIDS drugs Beginning in March of next year the price will come down from US$1.17 per capsule to US$0.63, reports the minister of Health, Saraiva Felipe, who explains that the discount will mean an economy of around US$340 million over a five-year period (2006 to 2011). Meanwhile the Abbott lab announced it will donate some US$3 million in other antiretroviral drugs and diagnostic kits. It also said it is studying a discount for Brazil on a new drug, Meltrex, which is still in tests in the US. internacional.radiobras.gov.br

To: TobagoJack who wrote (1726)	10/28/2005 3:23:10 PM
From: brian h	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218175

I am quite happy to see the suit as a matter of fact. That just proved one thing. QCOM's HSDPA chips and WCDMA chips are in high demand in the coming years. Those companies are scared/envious of QCOM's position. As a result, I went and bought more. :-) Do not forget those companies are making big bucks for their phones and chips now. What are they complaining about? It is like YiWu's complaining about Jay making too much money of being a China/Tobago businessman. It is unfair and not allowed. Jay should make less than 5% agreed upon by all parties involved. Do you want someone to tell you so? <<<<<<"Major telecommunications equipment companies on three continents are standing up and saying that that Qualcomm's business practices are unfair, anticompetitive and ultimately illegal," said David Dull, Broadcom's Senior Vice President.>>>>> QUALCOMM Responds to Broadcom's Latest Complaint Print Version QUALCOMM Believes Antitrust Claims Are Meritless SAN DIEGO — July 06, 2005 — QUALCOMM Incorporated ..............................Broadcom's allegations regarding supposed monopolization by QUALCOMM of a so-called "WCDMA market" are likewise demonstrably false. With many companies selling commercial WCDMA chipsets, competition among WCDMA chipset suppliers is healthy and intense, and QUALCOMM has supplied only a small percentage of the WCDMA chipsets sold to date. The inability of Broadcom to attract customers for its WCDMA products, as admitted in Broadcom's complaint, is indicative of this highly competitive environment and not of any ostensible anticompetitive activity by QUALCOMM. "This case, like the earlier patent cases filed by Broadcom against QUALCOMM, appears to be a desperate attempt by Broadcom to gain bargaining leverage through meritless litigation. Because Broadcom does not hold essential patents for the important cellular standards, Broadcom must feel compelled to resort to these kinds of measures rather than continuing to negotiate for licenses in good faith," said Louis M. Lupin, senior vice president and general counsel of QUALCOMM. "Broadcom's unfortunate preference for the litigation forum rather than the negotiating table will require QUALCOMM to proceed with litigation of its own." ...............................

To: TobagoJack who wrote (1726)	10/31/2005 3:48:26 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 218175

Having Broadcomm and TI (texas instruments, TXN) in the suit really hurts the case. Having Ericcsson and Nokia complain that QCOM isn't reasonable is one thing, and may make sense in Europe. Broadcomm was just plain late in developing intellectual property in this area - because they didn't start until years after QCOM and a few others created the technololgy and market. I think TI put most of their chips on GSM and ignored CDMA, since they have the biggest slice of the cell phone DSP market, their positions may come back to hit them. Notice that Samsung, Motorola, Lucky Goldstar, Sony, aren't party to this - and Samsung and Mot sell more than Ericcson and about half of Nokia's unit volume. Sort of looks like a loser's club. Unlikely that this suit would get any where in the US. Most of the European anti-trust people will know this. ****** TJ's point is pretty valid - generally, a business need some better than just IP on the patent side. Rambus is a good example of weak to marginal IP in a commoditizing industry. DRAM is DRAM, don't matter is Samsung, Hynin, or Micron makes it, it meets the same specs. Dolby is the often cited success story, but besides the technology patents, Dolby was lisencing a BRAND enhancement to consumer product businesses which needed both the differntiation and and the additional pricing that dolby could bring, and a retail channel which needs something to sell, hopefully at higher price points. Sony, Kenwood, Pioneer, Nakamichi, Alpine, Blaupunkt, JVC etc. aren't identical commodities, even to customers with low awareness.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (1726)	11/1/2005 7:33:12 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218175

Gidday TJ. <time for take-down and carry-out ... businesses that exist only at the mercy of know-how protection are really quite fragile.> For years I have predicted the anti-monopoly attack. The legal experts all dismissed my thoughts as they considered QCOM's licensing position impregnable legally. I disagreed, saying that where there is a big pile of money, the lawyers will not be far away and the governments will be there to support the lawyers to get their hands on the shareholders' money. To prove a monopoly, one only needs to define "the market" tightly enough. To prove abuse of a monopoly position, one only needs to show a profit has been earned. There is bundling to be considered too. There's lots of profitable legal argumentation to be done. Governments and courts can declare anything legal or illegal and confiscate anything they fancey. Being mostly chimp in character, they usually do so. They dress it up in some verbosity, with purported reasoning and legal precedent, then grab the loot. But all the Sier lawyers told me I was wrong. We will see how wrong I was. Despite my misgivings, QUALCOMM's licensing seems to have been so reasonable, low priced, non-discriminatory and so on that I have not thought there would be a major problem. I have also been reassured by the thought that King George II, Uncle Sam and the citizenry get a LOT of money from QUALCOMM's revenues and Americans don't take kindly to being robbed. They have got quotas, bans, tariffs and Predators, Tomahawks, USS Ronald Raygun, noocular bombs, ICBMs with MIRVs and all sorts of stuff with which to throw a tantrum if they don't get their way. Most businesses depend on the continuation of property protection and governments protecting them. I think QUALCOMM's position is better than most. There are and will be many $billions flowing to Uncle Sam and King George II from QCOMM's revenues. I don't think they'll take kindly to the theft of those $billions. Even the lawyers and "friends of the USA" in France and Germany and other EC countries might find their privileged positions are not enough to grab the loot from Uncle Sam. We will see. I am not worried, but I note that plenty of people are and that QUALCOMM's share price has been pummelled as a result of their sudden awareness that the attack would take place. Yawn... plus ca change... no surprise for me TJ. This particular attack on QCOM looks very weak. I don't think they'll get anywhere at all. They might even find themselves paying bigger royalties. 5% [the alleged average royalty] is far too cheap compared with, for example, the 16% GSM royalties for far less valuable technology. Mqurice PS: I'm pleased to see that my theory on 5x or even 10x advertising spend increases because of excellent targeting of advertisements in Google [and other cyberspace media] meant you realized your short was doomed and you escaped with minor injuries. [Yes, I am claiming it as my theory]