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: Cbad who wrote (62416)	4/11/2007 11:12:44 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196690

Source for the Dave Mock article? About two years ago Mock wrote a rather favorable book on the rise of Qcom, "The Qualcomm Equation. I think it's a good sign that there have been no more lawsuits or pronouncements. Maybe too much oil has been thrown on the fire. But, I wouldn't count on an early resolution. Maybe it's just that April 9 passed and the end of the world has not come. I read that there has been heavy volume in April 40 puts and July 50 calls. "saw heavy volume on the July 50 calls (AAOGJ) with over 29,000 contracts and on the April 40 puts (AAOPH) with over 36,000 contracts trading. In options there were 3.1 million puts and 3.9 million calls traded for a put/call open interest ratio of 0.80." qcom.bloggingstocks.com

To: Cbad who wrote (62416)	4/11/2007 12:49:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 196690

I have invented one! <Because no one has found a standard, reliable method of valuing intellectual property, the two companies continue to spar over the relative contribution of each of them in various commercialized wireless technologies used today. > I call it "what the market will bear". Get potential buyers and sellers together and see if they can agree on a price. Whatever they agree is the value of it to the buyer and seller. If they disagree then the seller thought it was worth more than the buyer did and the seller keeps it for themselves. It's like me selling my car. If I agree with a price with a buyer, then that's the value of the car. Which, in that case, is worth more to the buyer and less to the seller, otherwise they wouldn't have made the transaction. If I can't agree a price with the buyer, then the car is obviously worth more to me than it is to them. I should put my theory in a "paper" and apply for a Noble economics prize. I might call it "supply and demand" though "demand" seems a little too loaded as a word. Perhaps it should be "consumption". Too many people DEMAND, like Nokia is doing, like spoiled brats. Meanwhile, Nokia now has a price advantage over everyone else, which is definitely unfrandly. Nokia can increase their market share with such a price advantage. I imagine Motorola, for example, will be very annoyed at Nokia being given such an advantage and might ask Uncle Sam to nuke Nokia. Justifiably so. I hope QUALCOMM isn't illegally using Nokia's property. That would be poor form. Mqurice