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: ggamer who wrote (60700)	3/2/2007 9:47:18 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 197003

Because, contrary to popular mythology, it is not true that QUALCOMM's piffling royalty is a significant impediment to the adoption of either CDMA2000 or W-CDMA: <Why would all the manufacturers around the world willing to pay 15-28% royality on WCDMA and not choosing the best technology from QCOM at much much lower rate of 4%?> If royalties mattered, W-CDMA would NOT be adopted. Telstra would NOT be adopting W-CDMA and ditching CDMA2000. I hope that QUALCOMM's lawyers, despite being innumerate, [a legal degree requirement], can figure out that acceptance of W-CDMA royalties is proof that QCOM's royalty is eminently reasonable. Especially when compared with GSM royalty of 16%. Also that the royalty compared with the average 2 year cost of phone and service is trivial. And, further, that the cost of spectrum in Europe was proof that royalties were up to $100 billion lower than they should have been. I wonder if they can understand those points and get the ideas across to judges and juries. It seems absurdly easy to me, but people couldn't get Globalstar pricing ideas, which seemed simple to me. Pierre, a Sier criminal lawyer [perhaps a tautology], didn't get it, until too late, despite many rants by me. Mqurice