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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gfr fan who wrote (11791)	12/6/1997 9:29:00 PM
From: gfr fan	Respond to of 45548

TGW - from my knowledge of the networking business Martin seems to know what he's talking about. Also, I don't see the service providers buying networkers. If ATT bought CSCO immediately CSCOs ability to sell to any other service provider would be eliminated. This is why ATT spun off LU, so LU could full exploit sales to RBOCs whereas prior to the spinoff ATT was Network Systems was limited. Also, it's much different trying to run a hardware company than a service company from a financial model. Re: non-disclosure and product road mapping. Again I think Martin is correct that this is industry practice. I am comfortable that there are not too many secrets within the technology industry - lots of engineers move between employment at CSCO, COMS, BAy, etc. Also, non disclosures to customers don't always stay non-disclosed. While companies probably try and keep their real real secret stuff on a need to know, it's tough to close any systems sale these days w/o outlining where the product/platform is headed over the next 2-3 years. That's because these are $M plus decisions and no VP or CIO is going to sign off on this if the technology/platform is a dead end and is a forklift. Re: CTO's. I believe both COMS and CSCO have a Chief Technology Officer who are membesr of their respective executive committees.