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 QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: manalagi who wrote (913)	8/16/2007 4:49:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 9129

Hopefully, we'll never again hear or read of anyone saying that QUALCOMM royalties at 4% average, but standard at 5.5% are excessive. Especially considering the 12% for W-CDMA, 16% for GSM and now Broadcom's absurd 6% price for a few plops <For Qualcomm's homegrown wireless technology, which is used by such wireless phone companies as Sprint, Broadcom wants an 18-month phaseout. During that time, Qualcomm would have to pay a royalty rate of 6 percent per phone sold in the United States, which Rosmann estimated would be from $6 to $8 a phone. > It has always amazed me that people, including QCOM shareholders in SI, say that QCOM should reduce royalty rates. As proven time and again by spectrum prices and roaring consumer buying of CDMA-powered cyberphones, the cost of QCOM royalties is so near zero it doesn't appear on their radar. The cost of cyberphone service for 2 years is a LOT more than the price of the device. The minutes/megabytes charges by the service providers is the biggest cost. $10 for QCOM royalty out of $2000 over two years is insignificant. Cutting it to $5 would not make a detectable difference but would ruin QCOM's bottom line. It wouldn't just halve the bottom line. It would take it down to a fifth of current levels and maybe let competitors completely destroy QCOM. Given that claim by Broadcom, and no doubt it'll be awarded by the courts, then if QUALCOMM and Broadcom do a cross licence agreement, Broadcom would get about 314% royalty from QUALCOMM and QUALCOMM would get about a 4% royalty from Broadcom. QUALCOMM might as well just chuck the keys to Broadcom and give up. Broadcom is just insanely greedy and there is every indication that the courts will pander to them. And of course, the courts will pander to the W-CDMA gang of bandits too. The trend in public discsussions over many years has been clear. The world is out to get QUALCOMM for QUALCOMM's extremely greedy royalties which are far far cheaper than other's. It is always the case that the virtuous, productive, intelligent and wealthy are attacked by the venal, greedy, dishonest gangsters who pack hunt. It's the nature of politics. Judge Brewster is plain flat out wrong on his ridiculous assertion that QUALCOMM's 'no downside' case was "out of the blue". He should review the process between Broadcom and QUALCOMM, which you would think he would take the trouble to do since he's busy reading about Louis Lupin's puported news media comments. It doesn't make sense that QUALCOMM's legal advisors at Casebeer and co would destroy their reputations and business by conducting illegal operations for no gain. "Hey, here's a good idea. Let's lie and conceal for QUALCOMM in this no-downside case, and then when found out, we can all get jobs street sweeping and tell our wives the mortgages won't be paid." A few poxy little obvious patents that shouldn't even be patents, and a jury who might have got it completely wrong [the chances of a jury understanding patents is near zero] and QUALCOMM is in the process of being destroyed. The Euro slimeball gangs haven't started slicing and dicing yet. You can be sure they will have a LOT of reasons why QCOM is criminal and needs to be deprived of any income. Mqurice