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: Raymond who wrote (48457)	11/5/2005 2:25:45 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196421

I know that this is just bullshit and has nothing to do with the actual agreements but I think looking from outside it would not be all that unreasonable.I don't understand why all people on this thread thinks that QCOM:s patents are more essential than the essential patents compared to other companies.QCOM didn't invent cellular. It comes down to negotiating leverage. Qualcomm could create a 3G CDMA standard without the IPR of Nokia and Ericsson. The converse wasnt true. I really dont think it is much more complicated than that. All this existed in earlier standards. Many of the basics of CDMA is not really rocket science. It isnt rocket science any more, but that's only because Qualcomm put the R&D into creating it in the first place. Slacker

To: Raymond who wrote (48457)	11/5/2005 4:06:17 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 196421

don't understand why all people on this thread thinks that QCOM:s patents are more essential than the essential patents compared to other companies.QCOM didn't invent cellular.Didn't invent power control,Handovers..... Sorry, but the last part of this is untrue. Qualcomm essentially did invent the kind of power control necessary for CDMA cell systems to operate. Same for handover. Qualcomm essentially invented CDMA in a cell system. And the test of this is to see what people (e.g. Nokia, Ericsson, an infamous professor at Stanford or my mid 90's text book) were saying about CDMA cell systems in the mid 90's. The only real interesting thing is what happens when they expire. As for the difference between different kinds of patents - there is a huge difference between inventing the telephone and inventing a particular dialing mechanism. If you are politically astute enough you can get the standard to include your dialing system, but does that entitle you to the same royalties? Clearly not. Clark

To: Raymond who wrote (48457)	11/5/2005 4:48:52 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 196421

Many of the basics of CDMA is not really rocket science. LMAO! Thanks for the laugh. I suppose that is why the Nords have had such an easy time with it, especially WCDMA which in 1999 was promised to be commercialized by 2001.

To: Raymond who wrote (48457)	11/5/2005 6:15:19 PM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 196421

>>Take CDMA powercontrol for example.It's basically one db down or one db up in every slot. There are no "slots" in CDMA.

To: Raymond who wrote (48457)	11/6/2005 2:40:29 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196421

Raymond, you have obviously not learned in life that there is something called quality and something called quantity. Having 10 of something isn't necessarily better than having 1 of something different. Quality is what matters. When considering the relative value of patents, one needs to be a bit more intelligent than just counting them. There is also the matter of competitive position. QUALCOMM has it, the Hagfish Guild doesn't. Mqurice