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 : Ericsson overlook? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DWB who wrote (1193)	1/10/1998 11:44:00 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5390

Daniel -On your last point to Maurice you mentioned the following: <I would think that after reading your last post that even you would agree that there is no reason for Ericsson to "stop current customers from switching to technologies or software that is available elsewhere", since we've agreed that there are no currently available 3G systems for them to switch to, or any GSM/CDMAone systems that can provide similar capabilities.> One point this misses is that CDMAOne is already considerably "wider" than GSM. It is broader and can do more with data. Customers may begin switching to CDMAOne for this reason (as well as other reasons). The point of Ericsson announcing a vaporware 3G system is to forestall switching for this reason and to encourage customers to continue to hang with the GSM systems. You also say: <If, as I see it, 3G and current voice systems won't compete directly, then there is nothing in Ericsson's 3G claims to keep operators from switching to other voice systems, if voice is all they intend to provide.> There are some direct substitutions since 3G for Ericsson is presumably wider than CDMAOne but CDMAOne is wider than GSM. This occurs even though the Wideband version of CDMAOne will presumably be a more "direct" competitor with Ericsson's 3G system (if it ever exists).

To: DWB who wrote (1193)	1/11/1998 1:34:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5390

Daniel, I meant by the salesman analogy that the burden of proof is on the person trying to demonstrate something to do the proving or convincing that they can perform in this case where the dream is broader band CDMA. We'd been philosophically mucking about with whether there were negatives or positives to be proved and who has the burden of proof. Just as Qualcomm had to come up with the goods and convince the world that cdmaOne was not vaporware, worth investing in and would produce great benefit, so the burden of proof is on the claimant, Ericsson, to demonstrate more than the wish to keep its markets, distract customers from competitors and gain time to hopefully produce what is going to be a very difficult piece of work; an effective mobile multimedia phone/pc. It is possible to falsify some claims by showing they conflict with known requirements, such as the limits on the speed of light around our little planet. But I can't prove Ericsson can't produce the goods. They have to show they can. It seems certain that the physics is achievable, but that is far different from actually doing it. Especially when Qualcomm is streets ahead with rafts of patents. You said: "The problem with "guilt by perceived historical similarity" is it's accuracy is dependant on how true one's perceptions are. In your example, proof of performance during a sale is required once a system is being sold. Currently Ericsson is developing the systems, and therefore can't be held to that standard. You cannot be asked for performance related proofs until an item exists. Otherwise people could have tarred and feathered the Wright Brothers before their tests at Kitty Hawk every time they said they were building a flying machine. In that case, to claim that they couldn't do it would have been a case of "guilt by perceived historical similarity" (we've never built one before, so we can't in the future either), which is rubbish. The accusers "perception" would have been faulty." It is not for investors to prove Ericsson can't do it. It is for Ericsson to convince that they can. In a timely fashion. They certainly have the financial and other resources so should be able to do better than most. From comments by the GSM Club, I don't believe they would have put anything significant into CDMA. If they were, then they were liars and damaging their credibility back then. They can choose; we were wrong or we were lying. Having denied the success of cdmaOne right up to part way through last year it is asking a lot to say, "Well the Wright brothers flew a plane so I guess Ericsson can fly a broadband CDMA system in a year or two". Maurice