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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (21077)	4/26/2007 3:18:24 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank - Besides Qualcomm and GSM vendors themselves, this "battle" is probably more important to media pundits than anyone else. There's probably not 1 in 1000 handset users who could tell you if their handset was using CDMA or GSM, and not 1 in 10,000 who could explain the difference. There might be 1 or 3 in 100,000 who cares. On the IP issue, the question is "Are we going to accept the law, or not?" One can quibble about this or that, or whether the courts have made a justifiable call, but I can state the following as a certainty: We have never seen, and never will see an IP litigant refuse a winning verdict, nor the proceeds that accrue from it. It follows then, that if they are universally prepared to accept a win, they must also be prepared to accept a loss. If they are prepared to accept all possible outcomes, then logically they implicitly accept the legitimacy of IP law. If a potential litigant, before and after the fact, is prepared to disavow (not accept) a court victory then we can say: "They do not support the validity of IP law." The market for pure IP, and the consequent market for successful prosecution of same, is a growing field. Qualcomm and Wi-LAN have both followed the same path. However, this dispute is purportedly about cross-licensing, and trading off costs before IP ever gets to court. But if you don't maufacture devices, how can you benefit from cross-licensing? I say "purportedly", because the two sets of IP are largely incompatible, though cross-usage has been tested with W-CDMA. From which (again) Qualcomm will draw royalties. There's really not much opportunity for cross-licensing, and there's really no issue about validity of IP law, so the quarrel's about market share. Like it or not, Qualcomm's pursuit of technological and commercial success has been relentless. The results speak for themselves. They've carved out a segment of the market, defended it vigorously, and improved the technology continuously. They play by their own rules, and they don't make nice with the GSM Club. In the final analysis, should Qualcomm face declining market share because their royalty rates are too high, will they lower them? Of course. Like everyone else, they're charging what the market will bear. In terms of spectral efficiency, there's not much daylight between between advanced OFDM and advanced CDMA. A lot depends on the scenario: infrastructure, topography, usage, and so on. It comes down to engineering choices, and whether operators and their customers elect to pay the Qualcomm premium. True Believers from either side would have us think they argue What's Right, but the real issue is Profit. It's good copy, though. And, whether end-users realize it or not, the competition is a benefit. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To answer your question, I prefer the format at this link: ct.pbinews.com Jim