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 (75865)	3/27/2008 3:49:27 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197227

Not at all SF. <Tsk tsk tsk... you wouldn't be arguing patent proportionality in disguise while the rest of the thread is dismissing it as bogus, would you?> In the TV age when attention spans run to one short sentence with single syllables, it's tough to stretch meaning out, but if you take it in context, I was explaining that although QUALCOMM has done the same thing that Nokia was arguing, [heaps more patents since 1992], that is irrelevant. As Broadcom showed, what matters is not the quality of one poxy little obvious patent, but the market and market power that that one little patent, or 5,000 patents, provides access to. If the judicial system agrees that the patent is valid, then the value of the patent is what the market will bear. But if people want to argue proportionality, QUALCOMM is not exactly high and dry. Nokia would have everyone believe that while they were busy inventing through the 1990s and 21st century, QUALCOMM was sitting on their same old patents, charging an absurdly high toll. 4% for CDMA compared with 16% for GSM gives the lie to that argument. Compare the $ per bit per second per hertz for the two and you will understand why $100 billion was bid for some dud 2GHz spectrum in Europe. QUALCOMM's inventions enabled mobile cyberspace at a low price. Your doughnut analogy is the Kremlin and socialist concept of pricing = the cost of a thing plus a bit is how it should be priced. That is how most people think pricing should work as shown by the rabid attitude towards oil price when it zooms up. Supply versus demand and what the market will bear, is not how people think things should be priced. They prefer "free" roads, even if they suffer huge costs in traffic jams. Mqurice