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: Stock Farmer who wrote (75854)	3/26/2008 2:55:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197225

Nokia wants changes in their patent positions since 1992 and 2001 to be recognized, but there has been a LOT more spent on R&D and patents issued since then by QUALCOMM than was spent before Y2K. Before 1991, the whole of QUALCOMM could be bought for $200 million or so. I forget the market capitalisation at the time of the IPO but it was a lot less than the annual R&D budget earlier this century. I say QUALCOMM's patents from the last 7 years are worth far, far, far more than those early physics-breaching patents. But don't be distracted by the cost of inventing the patents. That cost has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of patents, contrary to common misperception. Patents have value according to how much people want to buy and use the inventions. Patent counting is an even more daft way than measuring R&D costs of assigning value to patents. Look at the price of spectrum for a start. That gives an inkling of what the enabling technology is worth. Nokia's patents are a load of dross, required to dress up the GSM Cartel's ring-fenced anti-competitive, anti-trust, oligopolistic W-CDMA. There is nothing W-CDMA did that CDMA2000 couldn't do better and cheaper. W-CDMA was a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their money, not a way to build a better mousetrap. Their mousetrap costs 12% royalty for a start, while CDMA2000 is at most 7% for Huawei's exports or 4% for Nokia's extremely cheap deal. For another hint on what QUALCOMM's technology is worth, having a look at total industry revenue which comes from CDMA variations. And check out the market capitalisation of the industry as a prediction of the profits to come from the industry. QUALCOMM has given licensees a supersonic bargain. Unfortunately, but of course, governments and other owners of spectrum capture that windfall value which QUALCOMM gave away by charging an absurdly low royalty. Mqurice I realize anti-trust doesn't fit there, but it sounds right and I wanted to point out the anti-trust implications of a cartel agreeing to be FRANDly. The cartel themselves are aware of the implications now and have been scuttling around getting their members to stop thinking, or at least talking, about the GMS Cartel as a way of keeping competitors such as 450MHz CDMA out of Europe. The "let's be friendly about price too" aspect is not normally considered allowable under anti-trust laws either. More importantly than "What is FRAND?", is "Is FRAND even a legal concept within a cartel?"

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75854)	3/26/2008 4:23:27 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197225

And what essential 3G IPR did Broadcom get from Zyray Wireless, that required Qualcomm to give Broadcom a better deal than the FRANDly royalty-free agreement it has with sophisticated TI? (I don't recall Zyray as being an R&D powerhouse, nor their bolt-on Spinner Chip as being particularly desirable.) According to you, Broadcom apparently got a steal at $96 mil when they decided to stop their cooperation with Qualcomm, and become a competitor. Has Broadcom been able to license that "valuable" Zyray IPR to any other 3G chip or handset companies? Is Broadcom, in your mind, entitled (with or without Zyray) to a better deal than that afforded to TI?