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: JeffreyHF who wrote (73001)	1/2/2008 7:33:16 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 196972

I couldn't agree more JeffreyHF, and may we all have a hearty celebration when Q sticks it to BRCM on licensing fees.........if they choose to license them at all. At this point, BRCM stinks worse than dead hagfish. M

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (73001)	1/2/2008 9:55:33 PM
From: Rich Bloem	Respond to of 196972

Jeffery, I agree with you. Pull back those offers. Let Broadcom wonder where their leverage really is. NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (73001)	1/3/2008 9:35:51 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 196972

Jeff, Re: Amer Tech on BRCM v QCOM,etc. and>> 1) “ Ongoing litigation with QCOM will remain overhang, ATR believes BRCM has little to lose as it is a relatively small business in cell phone ICs.” Yes, currently, but from 2005 on McGregor has been touting the robust growth in the cell baseband market and that it would be one of the major growth drivers for BRCM future---. Recently predicting 10 – 15% market share. 2) “ATR's view is that end game is to ensure BRCM gets favorable cross-licensing terms so that its cell phone customers do not pay QCOM excessive fees or "tax" for its CDMA technologies (similar to what we are seeing from China and others). ATR believes this injunction gives BRCM additional leverage in its ongoing negotiations.” As shrewdly pointed out by others, these BRCM actions (although a pain in the arse to all of us) have resulted in QCOM designing around BRCM patents and thus reducing (eliminating ??) BRCM’s future leverage in their ultimate prize--- a favorable QCOM cross-license. I believe QCOM also purchased a small Blue tooth company to avoid BRCM’s patents in that area. It seems to me Amer Tech is misreading the tea leaves, as BRCM may be scoring points in the PR front but losing bargaining power in the long run as QCOM stands tough in its resolve to defend its rightly earned royalties and mighty FRANDly business model…….. which becomes more evident in each passing BRCM “victory”. + $6/ handset (~3% / handset) VZW license for 6 flimsy purchased patents* + 6% / 4.5% on chipset sales for 3 flimsy purchased patents* • * unrelated to cellular networks, soon to expire, never put to use even in prototype fashion by the inventors / their company. Further, wonder why Amer Tech considers the Q’s “fees excessive” at ~ 4 -4.5% for a 5,000+ patent portfolio (mostly internally developed over 20 years) which is essentially responsible for enabling all 3G mobile wireless tech---- when BRCM’s flimsy 6 at ~3% are fair / reasonable/ OK ???? Re: Jeff’s comment >>> “I hope by now Qualcomm's previous, incredibly generous licensing offers to Broadcom have been withdrawn.” I hope so too, but with FRA- ND (non-discriminatory) does the Q have any choice but to license BRCM at terms roughly equivalent to what it does to others with similar IPR, etc for trade??? It may have been offered a royalty free cross-license similar to TI's (apparent??)--- which may now have been withdrawn due to the design arounds BRCM IPR.