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: Bill Wolf who wrote (159417)	7/23/2019 8:27:49 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196449

The basic concept behind a patent is this: If you invent something and are first to register it with the government, you “own” the invention and can sue anyone who makes something using the patent without your permission This seems like a problem with patent law. If some other entity is able to create the same thing (or something very similar) as the original technology creator - without copying the creator's work - then the creation should not be patentable. The patent should be enforceable only if the second inventor copied the work of the first rather than created it on their own. This should be true in high tech, where every single leading edge advancement is something new. The inventors should create their new technological wonder, and just not tell anyone else how they did it. If some follower then figures out how to do the same thing in the same way, good for them, the first inventor doesn't deserve a "lock" on technological advancement just because they got their first.

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (159417)	7/23/2019 9:30:15 PM
From: frmrVZguy	Respond to of 196449

There's gotta be more than one reason to spend a billion dollars. In a future LTE-only world mmWave isn't enough. AAPL has a contract for 6 years until 2/3G sunsets worldwide to buy QCOM modems. Then in the future LTE-only world 'Something_New' happens. Part of what happens is a radically simplified modem. Say Hello to HUBS Just like router hubs connect multiple devices, these hubs also connect your IoT but incorporate several radio technologies: WiFi and Bluetooth of course. Z-Wave and Zigby and Semtech and other LoRAN like Sigfox. We already know AAPL is moving strong into medical devices. It makes sense they acquire a strong design team to support their expansion. But the world of IoT is said to become many billions of devices, and designs are consolidating so these devices can achieve low cost through scale. QCOM SoCs already incorporate multi-RAN hubs. Is AAPL going head-to-head with QCOM? NO. Well , I don't expect so. At lest not in smartphones and mobile computing of other brands . I expect they have negotiated using in-house tech for their own brands free of litigation. In an LTE-only world of HUBS this makes sense because QCOM doesn't control it all. While the obvious addition of RAN to a future A## APU makes sense, I expect the CFO guys want more rreasons to project justification and ROI. That's where IoT becoming billions of devices and SCALE economics enters. IoT is trying to consolidate designs to achieve SCALE. I expect there is an industry-wide conversation about this, and concessions to secede or not trespass segments so that SCALE economics and SCALE C3 can be achieved. E.g. security cameras are an example of a single company becoming a global commodity. IMO We already know INTC isn't quitting IoT like its very VERY successful M.2 modem solutions which is a segment they 'own'. Expect XMM to continue in CPE and MiFi-type 'pucks' too. We just don't know how IP and product collaboration is planned. I expect a license-back deal. My interpretation of these last eight years is that INTC has found it can't find the correct partners to support future low-power, low-energetics for tight packaging and long-duration devices. That's what years and years of hardball have earned for itself: enmity. AAPL wants to control its own destiny and needs the IP INTC couldn't license for itself and share via XMM. IMO