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: slacker711 who wrote (62406)	4/11/2007 9:30:02 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 196936

Has Qualcomm mentioned their spring analyst meeting lately? It isnt up on their calendar even though we should be less than a month away. In contrast, they already have a date up for their November meeting in London. Did they decide to stop having the spring meeting and I just missed it? I hope not, that meeting tended to provide the most technical details of any event all year. investor.qualcomm.com Slacker

To: slacker711 who wrote (62406)	4/11/2007 11:01:38 AM
From: jackmore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196936

In my mind, the key to this is the fact that Qualcomm was prepared to hold their IP out of the WCDMA standard entirely. The current situation where Q receives the same royalties on both standards was a result of a compromise. Q caved on their demands for "harmonization" including having a single standard based on a chiprate that was a multiple of the IS-95 rate. Thanks for that reminder...and the short stroll down memory lane with Gregg Powers. Someday I hope someone chronicles this whole affair in a B-school textbook. There's enough material for an entire course on technology transition, business model evolution, the dynamic between innovation and entrench monopolies, etc., etc...

To: slacker711 who wrote (62406)	4/11/2007 12:04:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196936

Slacker, I never thought QUALCOMM would accept less for W-CDMA. I did think governments would set about stealing QUALCOMM property for the slimeball hagfish to feast on. Neither did Gregg's post say that he assumed QUALCOMM would get paid reduced royalties. <f you go back to the pre-March '99 posts on the Q threads, nobody expected Qualcomm to get paid the same royalty for both standards. Here is a post from Gregg Powers that I think sums up the situation at the time. > He only wrote that QUALCOMM could afford to reduce the royalties. It baffles me why George Gilder and nearly everyone thinks that QUALCOMM should reduce royalties. Royalties should go UP not down. The royalty should reflect what subscribers will pay for the services and they will pay heaps. The spectrum sellers and service providers have made out like bandits because because royalties were too low. Yes, there is supposedly competition in wimax, but it's not exactly much of a threat by the look of it and we have yet to learn whether QUALCOMM has some intellectual property that will enable the normal GSM royalty of 16% for QUALCOMM. All the talk should be about how QUALCOMM can INCREASE royalties, not reduce them. When there is spare spectrum sloshing around, then we will know that QUALCOMM royalties are too high. Mqurice