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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (5946)	2/13/2010 4:17:10 PM
From: Jon Koplik	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9129

Maurice -- best post out of the last 5946.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (5946)	2/14/2010 5:06:57 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9129

Maurice, I respect your desire to put words in my mouth. Unfortunately they're yours, not mine. Re: Flarion and Iridigm. As I noted in earlier responses, the COST of an investment is not just the money up front, but that sum augmented by a 6% rate of return, which is what a shareholder could get without too much trouble or risk, if the cash were distributed as dividends. You bring up an important point not mentioned earlier, however. What would some other company do with Flarion or Iridigm if they, not QCOM owned it? Obviously, that alternative might have a profoundly negative impact on future earnings. So there are good reasons for making these investments. Again, what I am saying is to calculate the cost not simply on the basis of the initial, up front investment, but the opportunity cost from investing (or distributing) it elsewhere. You are also correct that I have favored lower royalties -- INITIALLY. That is, if QCOM had made its royalties much lower, before GSM was adopted almost universally, they might have had an easier job of gaining acceptance. It is good business to make an offer a potential customer can't reasonably refuse. It gives a company an incentive to start using a patented technology and assures that later on, when royalties go up, there will be a reluctance to change. In other words, a favor a low introductory rate, not a low permanent rate. Don't put your words in my mouth. I don't know what CO2 emissions have to do with this discussion, but my views are based on research published mainly in Science, the weekly journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in which I have been a member for the last 36 years. The articles and letters printed in Science are all peer reviewed. If you can provide a better, more unbiased scientific basis for your views, then go ahead and do it. But for the moment, be advised that the latest research articles from Science show that the adverse impacts of CO2, now and in the near future, are MUCH WORSE than had been estimated earlier. Art