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: JGoren who wrote (73005)	1/2/2008 7:28:17 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196985

I think ATR is dead wrong. Calling Qualcomm's low handset royalties a "CDMA tax", rather than compensation for numerous important inventions, is simply political spin, born of their own extortionate valuation of their own down market IPR.Why buy from Broadcom, who demands excessive royalties yet refuses to honor the product of years of sweat, R&D investment, and ingenuity of Qualcomm's engineers? Purchasers of Broadcom chips risk being disrupted and barred worldwide. Just because Broadcom wants to change the rules of the mobile market, before entering that space, doesn't make it right or likely.Who the hell do they think they are?

To: JGoren who wrote (73005)	1/3/2008 4:04:40 AM
From: Raglanroadie	Respond to of 196985

"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" I questioned in another post that since Q will be able to work around these patents it will therefore be up to BRCM to ensure it's technology is widely distributed. It seems that instead of licensing with Q which would have ensured the continued use of BRCM's patents they must now carry the promotion banner alone. I think the "little to lose" belief by the analyst is overly simplistic. If BRCM were serious then at this stage of their wireless entry they would be more concerned with IPR adoption than only what they can sell. I thought NOK hated this kind of mentality so should I think it strange that they may be partnered up with an example of that which they claim to oppose?