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: waitwatchwander who wrote (146740)	12/1/2006 6:24:00 PM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I wonder if Euronuts are invollved in this. If anyone comes up with a truly superior product, someone whines to some government. U.S. starts antitrust probe into graphics chips 12/01/2006 15:44:12 By Scott Hillis SEATTLE (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to Nvidia Corp. <NVDA.O> and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. <AMD.N> as part of a probe into potential antitrust violations involving graphics chips, helping to send shares in the companies lower. Nvidia, the largest independent maker of graphics chips for computers and other devices, said on Friday that no specific allegations had been made against the company and that it plans to cooperate with the investigation. AMD, the No. 2 maker of computer processors, said late on Thursday that it had been subpoenaed. AMD entered the graphics business in October after acquiring Canadian firm ATI Technologies for $5.4 billion. Nvidia and AMD each control about 25 percent of the market for graphics chips that are used in personal computers, mobile handsets, video game consoles and other devices, with Intel Corp. <INTC.O> controlling the rest. Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona confirmed that it is looking into "the possibility of anti-competitive practices" involving graphics chips and cards, but declined to elaborate.

To: waitwatchwander who wrote (146740)	12/1/2006 6:43:01 PM
From: Q8tfreebe	Respond to of 152472

" They certainly seem to spend a lot on splashy marketing and handset design" Although I agree with you, it makes you wonder why they were so late with the clamshell and I still haven't seen a thin phone.

To: waitwatchwander who wrote (146740)	12/1/2006 7:14:04 PM
From: AlfaNut	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

If that is the case than the EU case should be a slam dunk. The Chinese competitors Qualcomm has enabled pay 7% while Nokia (and the other ex cabel crowd + Koreans) pay 5%. Aren't you saying a 2% difference is not enough for them to complete against Chinese imports? No. The Chinese license agreements are a red herring. Recall that the different domestic/export rates for Chinese licensees was for a limited period. After that the licenses revert to standard terms. I do not know the exact date, but they have likely gone to standard rate already. Even if they haven’t yet it still remains a temporary situation. To the best of my knowledge the Chinese handset manufacturers haven’t made a big impact into Nokia’s key markets, so they’re likely not a significant concern in the near term. Nokia is far more concerned about not having a royalty advantage compared to Samsung, LG, and others who were not part of the GSM crowd but sell a lot of CDMA/WCDMA. It’s all about Nokia using their own patent machine, size and political influence to gain a footing in the patent swapping maelstrom that gives them a leg up on their direct competition. QCOM isn’t their direct competition, but QCOM enables those who are and is their worst nightmare from the standpoint of being in the way of how they would like to make the royalty equation stack up. I wish the EU case were a slam dunk, but it isn’t. Realize the EU case is all about 1) what does FRAND mean, 2) do the histories of the WCDMA standards process and the license agreements affect how it should be applied, and 3) can politics somehow win out over what you and I consider the rational application of law. Those are NOT simple questions, but if the EU were to get involved and rule against QCOM I think they would find it hard to justify under the rule of law, would be going down alleys that have never been explored, and would produce a lot of unintended consequences.