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: David E. Taylor who wrote (79207)	7/25/2008 6:16:32 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197246

It just all of a sudden hit me--the sea change that was right in front of our faces. The additional competitors you cite are also valid. But, the bottom line is Nokia is ceding the underlying technology and focusing elsewhere. That can mean we might not have to fight the Europeans anymore over introducing the underlying technology unless maybe Seimans can compete. (Maybe the Chinese and Koreans.) This opens a whole new world. BTW, JP Morgan speculates that the "poison pill" in the deal that prevents other licensees from wanting the same royalty rate is that Nokia committed to pay a huge minimum royalty over the 15 years of $8 to $10 billion, an amount that would choke any manufacturer that doesn't have Nokia's market share.

To: David E. Taylor who wrote (79207)	7/25/2008 10:54:48 PM
From: kelseysuncle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197246

David: Thanks for the great analysis. I just read through the cc transcript and two things kind of jumped out at me. First, one of the questioners asked about restating past earnings to reflect the missing Nokia payments and then continued on with further questions. Keitel did not respond to the first part re: restatement but rather concentrated on the rest of the questions. What occurred to me is: Doesn't QCOM have to go back and amend statements for the quarters affected? Second, I may have missed it during this really busy week but I can't recall having seen anything from QCOM re: guidance on revised FY08 numbers. They have guided +7-13 cents for Q4 FY08 but not the effects on the full year. Did I miss something? Finally, a minor quibble. Because of the way royalty revenues are recognized there are only 4 quarters that were affected by Nokia's missing payments, Q4 FY07, Q1, Q2 and Q3 FY08. Your analysis repeatedly mentions 6 quarters. Might this change have any affect on your assumptions/conclusions? Thanks in advance. ku