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 : 3G Wireless: Coming Soon or Here Now? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (508)	11/1/2005 7:10:12 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 666

The Group Of Six on Behalf of an Industry << Beware of "unintended consequences". Out of this self-induced chaos, a new set of royalty constructs may emerge, though quite different from what was envisioned. The Group Of Six no longer have control over their own destinies, and the new world industry order may be less to their liking. Stay tuned, as it is about to get very interesting. >> If you can offer up a coherent analysis to back up that statement 'non-sycophantically' <g>, I would be delighted to read it, and comment back if there is something worth commenting on. IMO, statements like "The Group Of Six no longer have control over their own destinies" is just total blather with no redeeming substance. I will comment here on a statement you made today on a company board simply because that board in its moderated sister are suffering somewhat from overload by a brave band of virtual holy warriors and what Andrew Orlowski once aptly called "the nutball fringe of Qualcomm's barmy army of loyal headbangers." Y Your question ... Why did Ericsson capitulate on the eve of trial, and agree to the settlement terms of cross-licensure/purchase of the infrastructure division, and the rest of the majors sign contracts without litigation? Message 21844254 Ericsson and QUALCOMM settled their differences and dropped litigation against each other and QUALCOMM capitulated on its "5 Principles" because they had an ITU shotgun pointed to their head and if they had not done so there would have been no ITU sanctioned IMT-2000 CDMA based technologies. Posts #1, #2, and #4 on this board discuss that. On a personal note I pulled the trigger on my initial purchase of QCOM shortly after that because I figured no executive at QUALCOMM or Ericsson was ready to blow their legs off. If you care to review QUALCOMM's "5 Principles" and QUALCOMM's failed bid to control the architecture of at least the air-interface aspect of a single converged standard in which they threatened to use their IPR to block any implementation based on key architectural aspects that had been agreed in the Japan's FLPMTS initiative ARIB and ETSI they can be found here ... Message 18912506 BTW: Didn't George Gilder's disciple Brian Modoff who (sycophantically) covers QUALCOMM ask the first question on IPR at the last QUALCOMM Analyst Day? Does Paul Sagawa who covers QUALCOMM for Sanford Bernstein cover them sycophantically? Does Paul Sagawa who covers Ericsson for Sanford Bernstein cover them sycophantically or does he only cover Nokia sycophantically? Best, - Eric -