To: carranza2 who wrote (140263 ) 11/22/2005 3:21:31 PM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472 C2 you will recall me ranting years ago about how QUALCOMM was going to be served up to the lawyers for anti-trust, anti-monopoly, Sherman act, envy-based, consumer protection, anti-bundling, general hassling and attacking. The experts in SI said "No way Jose! QUALCOMM is as clean as a whistle." Well, being an international expert in anti-monopoly law, I could see the storm coming a mile away. Here it is. Reef the sails. Stand by the pumps. Lawyers will be coming over the balustrades by the hundred, looking for a piece of the action, aka loot. It's simple. All transactions are transient monopolies. Some last longer than others and have higher prices than others. The ones which attract the lawyers are the ones with a pot of gold sitting at the end of the rainbow. All that's required is to define "the market" tightly enough to demonstrate a monopoly, which can be done for any business. Hey presto, a monopoly. Excessive profits can then be proven by showing that return on capital invested is higher than the Federal Reserve cash rate or perhaps bank prime lending rates if being generous. Bundling can be proven easily. Not many businesses sell everything individually. Usually they bundle their intellectual property and many bits and pieces in together for ease of negotiation and trading. For example, you buy a Lexus complete with headlights, IPR, tyres, seats, engine, paint, and even a steering wheel is bundled. They even put petrol in the tank! And register the vehicle. You don't buy the headlights from one supplier and the tyres from another and the body shell from Lexus. It's a bundled deal. Same with a CD player. You get the laser, the case, the IPR all bundled in together and you can't buy them separately. Same with CDMA 2000 and W-CDMA. QUALCOMM offers a bundle of stuff and you buy it or not. Some things they sell separately. When I buy an ice-cream at a dairy, I can't go in with my own cone and insist they sell me the ice-cream at a lower price. Well, I could, but they might tell me something rude. I suppose I could hire a contingency fee anti-monopoly lawyer to force them to sell me the ice-cream and not the cone. We could get a government department to investigate the abuse of monopoly power. We know the difference. In one there's a big pot of money for the lawyers and government bludgers to grab. In the other there isn't. I told you so! The anti-monopoly attacks are on. Mqurice