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: Maurice Winn who wrote (76855)	5/4/2008 9:42:08 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197265

LOL... the "q" in Mq isn't quixote, is it? LOL... I don't want to cower before a capricious, arbitrary, venal and stupid legal system which is so illogical that it's a flip of a coin which way legal decisions go. I want to see the legal system on which my livelihood depends stand up and be counted as worth something other than a dumb neighbourhood bully forcing people to somehow settle their differences OUTSIDE courtrooms. Bravo!!! Me too. I also want to live in a world where my neighbors don't shoot, rape, strangle, bludgeon and otherwise impair the lives of my other neighbors. Sadly, it appears the only way that's going to happen is if I live in a world where I have very few neighbors. I also want to live in a world of principles, which apply equitably to all parties without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, or stock-ticker-symbol. So I too would "... not like to deal with anyone who will involve me in court processes. If they are not virtuous, reasonable, considerate, honest and at least trying to operate in a legal sensible way, then they are not worth dealing with other than at arms length on a cash before delivery basis." Which is to say that when I enter a contract that says, in effect, "all extensions have to be in writing", the other party will honor what I put down in writing, even if they can turn to the implicit operation of an obscure law in a foreign jurisdiction that they didn't disclose at the time and pretend I agreed to what they wanted anyway. If they do, at least they shouldn't cry foul if I act similarly. If one is foul, then so is the other. Turnabout is fair play. "But mommy, he threw dirt in my hair first" is the kind of squabbling any parent deals with summarily: irrelevant, now both of you out of the garden, time out in opposite corners.... It takes two to tango. Two wrongs merely make both parties wrong. Parents should step in when the health and safety of the children are at risk. But not before. Otherwise the children never learn, never grow up and never learn how to share and exist in the world. I suspect there are many on the boards and management teams of both of these companies who could have benefited from more dirt in their hair at a younger age. This whole dispute is rediculous from the get go. Qualcomm has a bunch of patents that are important. They deserve boodles of low margin dollars in return for having been smart enough to squeeze the laws of physics through smaller holes than they'd ever been squeezed before and making all of our lives better. A kind of electromagnetic equivalent of velcro and sticky-note-pads. They've helped to change the world. So has Nokia. Nokia's help has been putting together a value chain that is so attached to their cellphones that we need Qualcomm's better & stronger & faster technology in order to avoid running out of airwaves. Otherwise CDMA might just as well have been another Globalstar. Sony versus Betamax... oodles of brilliant technology orbits the planet uselessly... the point is bringing consumers to the table en-masse. Cabal or not, that's what GSM has helped to accomplish. Embrace contribution, celebrate value, join the bandwagon and enjoy the ride! Qualcomm is content to let bit players in the eastern reaches of Franjackistan off easy with 5-7% royalties and access to the bit-player's entire (although negligible) patent portfolio. They call this "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory". But they also try to try to let the big guys off with the same deal on the theory that one size fits all fits well. Now, based on my anatomy and significant shopping experience, I can tell you for a fact that one size does not fit all. I strongly suspect that both you and I would look silly or sloppy or somewhat oddly dressed in clothes that fit the other. I like things tailor made. I admit, that bias does tend to color my thinking whenever I see such an offer labeled as "fair" or "reasonable". Maybe tailoring each set of clothing is harder, or more difficult, or requires more skills, or costs more... but in the end, it just fits better. And I can afford it. IMO, both of these corporate children should be sent to opposite corners for a time out. However, if we do this then none of the other kids can have any fun. So the health of all the children is at stake. Time for parents to intervene, I've [almost] had enough.