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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (8432)	2/11/1998 9:03:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Caxton, all: Sorry in advance for beating a dead horse, but your post on the Europeans evidently heading for "UNITY" on standards inspires me once again. There's a ton or two of politics in this, of that I have no doubt. The arm wrestling and PR'ing that will go on for the next few months will be intense and not known except to participants at the highest level. That said: Would a STANDARD not be in everyone's best interest? I mean everyone -- the carriers, the equipment suppliers, the handset makers, the customers, and most importantly of course the mighty Q? Of course, if these jokers don't want to pay the Q for IPR's, all bets are off. Still, Surfer Mike senses that there's a big set coming in. The IP Multicasting guys are getting their stuff together, and I think wireless must do the same. Here comes everyone's favorite canine but MSFT did do the world a favor in that regard. I'll be damned if I want to buy software that won't work 2 years down the road cause it's Apple or whatever. Do I think MSFT should have a monopoly? No, no, and no. So a standard around which competitors can innovate and compete but still owe the Q a little vig, at least for a while, or lump sum, or whatever. Too simplistic? Probably--but I think the financial implications are very real. Comments? Mike Doyle