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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (48381)	11/3/2005 1:01:42 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196450

<The companies, including Broadcom Corp. (BRCM), NEC Corp. (NIPNY), Nokia Corp. (NOK), Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN), Panasonic Mobile Communications and Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson (ERICY), claim the royalty fees Qualcomm charges for licensing its patents are excessive. They also say it has used tactics that keep other companies from entering the market.> Those people must be mad. For years I have argued that royalties are absurdly low, which they are. They should have been at least as high as GSM and actually as high as the market would bear, which is about 100% royalty judging by the European spectrum auction results [and other auctions] which proved QUALCOMM left $100bn on the table for service providers to bid to get hold of the spectrum. And what's the nonsense about keeping other companies from entering the market? Have they not heard of Wimax, wifi, OFDM, ADSL, Bluetooth, UWB, fibre, geostationary satellites, snail mail, carrier pigeons and any number of other ways of communicating. Assuming that communicating is what they are talking about. Just what do they mean by "the market". Oh, of course, they mean the market as defined by what QUALCOMM invents and sells. A monopoly can always be proven by drawing the boundaries of "the market" tightly enough. "Abusive monopoly" can always be proven by showing profits above bank interest rates. Ipso facto, QUALCOMM is running an abusive monopoly. Send in the dogs!! If QUALCOMM is really charging only 5% royalty, it's an insult to the inventors. The scum-sucking GSM Guild charged 16% and more for a legacy technology which couldn't drive a cyberphone. QUALCOMM is charging a third of that for something which will change the world, enabling a no-boundaries cybersphere to turbo-charge humanity with Google, gpsOne position location, radioOne and a vast panoply of services available only over a high speed phragmented photon CDMA/OFDM air interface. QUALCOMM licensed handset makers, infrastructure makers, ASIC makers and licensed their software. They gave up on the handset making and infrastructure, selling those divisions having established the market. That's not the mark of an abusive monopolist, which would have kept it all, vertically integrated. Mqurice