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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Hayman who wrote (146596)	11/24/2006 3:44:14 PM
From: matherandlowell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Is this guy high? "Additionally, Nokia is involved with some high-level negotiations with Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM) over licensing the latter's CDMA technology -- a cellular technology being used in many parts of Asia, North America, and South America. Nokia may officially end its relationship with Qualcomm early in 2007. The surprising thing is, this may end up helping Nokia as its CDMA business loses money. Plus, it dominates the GSM platform it helped invent with a nearly 40% market share." I've read this paragraph several times and can't understand how someone with what would seem to be normal thought processes could conclude that Nokia is (1) a great stock, and that (2) it dominates a GSM platform it helped invent. Assuming the writer is not simply a paid publicist, which might not be a valid assumption, what is he smoking? There can be simply no doubt that WCDMA depends on fundamental QCOM patents. It would also seem obvious that Nokia will face overwhelming risks if it does not agree to a license agreement with the Q. Absent that agreement, how can anyone seriously say that Nokia is a sure bet? I guess I can't see how someone can make such claims in good faith given what is public knowledge about this conflict. Two explanations: the writer has an undisclosed conlict of interest, or, the writer is in major denial. Even those of us with strong QCOM leanings acknowledge the risks of no license agreement with Nokia. Could it be that the writer believes that the option granted Nokia to renew their license by the end of 2008 is a safety net? I don't own any Nokia but I'm open to buying some. But how can I buy a stock if I know the company doesn't have a license after April, 2007 for many of its major product lines? It would seem to me that with the addition of MOT to Qualcomm's client base, Nokia is much more vulnerable than before. Samsung plus Motorola (both powered for 3G by the Q) equals increasing competition for Nokia. I can't see a reasonable argument to the contrary. j.