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: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/17/1998 1:27:00 PM
From: Matt Webster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Doesn't Anyone Trade Qualcomm? I'm here trying to predict the near-term stock price, and no one cares! I guess everyone here is WAY long and doesn't care about price. Anyone have price targets for entry or exit? Matt

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/17/1998 1:40:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: Thank you so much for explaining the European perspective on "situation ethics". It is apparently proper business to "slam" a competing technology with falsehood and innuendo, while busily investing in R&D to close the gap. I am sure that ERICY's and NOK's customers appreciate being deceived by their vendors' desire to protect their GSM franchise. Your attempt at mutual exclusivity is also amusing. W-CDMA is optimized for high data rate, and IS-95 is optimized for mobile voice. There is no particular reason why the two standards cannot co-exist. Moreover, the simple act of endorsing a proposed standard is far removed from a vendor actually having a product to sell and a carrier actually writing a check. More amusing, you substantiate W-CDMA by saying that a bunch of companies have endorsed it, but consign QC to a niche market despite the fact that dozens of equipment manufacturers have not only endorsed the standard, but written checks for licenses and R&D to manufacture equipment. And let us not forget that IS-95 is being deployed in over thirty countries (but a guess this isn't much of an endorsement since it isn't consistent with your opinion). Isn't there a lack of symmetry to your logic? I was unaware that QC's management was engaging in wild claims; if being surprised by SEA is a "wild claim" then what do you call deliberately deceiving your customers about the future of TDMA-based GSM. Finally, where is your critique of QC's IPR vis-a-vis W-CDMA. You suggest that QC management is making wild claims, but make no attempt to substantiate the position with fact. QC's patents are public record, as is the proposed W-CDMA standard. Why don't you try to drive a stake through the heart of those San Diegan promoters by showing how the great Nordic braintrust can circumvent the IPR? It really would be more interesting, and illuminating, then your hyperbole. Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/17/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

tero - I am completely confused. You say Or is nobody really taking seriously the wild claims from Qualcomm's bosses anymore? and then you say: Don't you see that when the Nordic companies slammed Qualcomm's CDMA they were protecting the GSM franchise (i.e. they lied) So, who should we be trusting, given this assessment. In the fallout from the previous war you seem to believe that Ericsson was shown to be telling lies and Qualcomm was exagerating. Who turned out to be closer to the truth? And now you choose to believe Ericsson (the intentional liars) over Qualcomm (the slight exagerators)? What possible basis can this have? Clark PS Who cares about the totaltelecom article! What matters is the quote from the manager in charge of putting the 3g system together. Do you not consider him a reliable source?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/17/1998 8:31:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: A couple of things stand out in your post: First, WCDMA (as proposed by ETSI) is a proposal for a proposal for a standard. Basically the way that I understand it the groups of ETSI have agreed that it would be a good idea to have a TDMA-CDMA system. They have submitted this idea as a proposal to the EU which still has to approve that this is a good starting place. After that happens ETSI will put some meat on the bones of this proposal. So it is hard (if not impossible) to take as a threat something that is still at least a year from becoming a proposal much less a product. This especially true as QCOM and Vodaphone announce the results of an Arthur Anderson financial review of their overlay (something that any system can do now). Second, as someone has earlier pointed out just because someone voted for the idea of WCDMA (remember it isn't a standard yet) doesn't mean that they gave it a ringing endorsement. The only thing that this vote from ETSI means is that they were able to come to a compromise as far as what air interface they will use for UMTS. That is a long way from having a standard in hand. Their current agreement is something like saying that everyone can agree to speak English on this bulletin board. We can still have disagreement on whether to use Kings English or American Slang. If we had to agree to that we would be sunk and yet that is what ETSI still has to do. Third, the founders of QCOM wrote their origional (Published) theses (see Gilhausen et al) on the capacity of CDMA in a mobile environment in the early 1980's. This indicates to me that they were doing research(at the theoretical level at least) since a few years before that. It takes months to years to publish a paper and quite a while before that to get the data to support your conclusions. Fourth, when you say that the people buying into IS-95 are mostly the dregs of the communications world I would really like to know who you mean. Does this include Nokia, Motorola, Alcatel, Qualcomm, and Phillips? All of these companies make phones, infrastructure or parts for CDMA phones. Fifth, you keep on waving NTT-DoCoMo in the face of the people on this thread. Have you forgotten that the presidents of QCOM and NTT got together and agreed that whatever system NTT finally got into it would be backward compatable to IS-95 (as I remember it). Look back in the posts on this board and you will find an announcement to that effect. I could go on for hours, but I think that more questions later would be better as this post is long enough already.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/17/1998 11:26:00 PM
From: qdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

More bullshit. I'm afraid to tell you this Tero, but Ericsson was touting this long before Nokia sign on. They just needed your QCOM license to solidfy it, for they are years behind doing anything in CDMA. We are the world leaders........talk about swelled heads

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/18/1998 12:43:00 AM
From: bdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

You remind me of Tokyo Rose. Cheers.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (8598)	2/18/1998 9:43:00 AM
From: brian h	Respond to of 152472

Tero -(Nordic European Havengate Ingenious Christian), Just wait and see. Do not have to argue with you anymore. It seems to me that for sure GSM is ready to be in transition to WCDMA in year 2001 or 2002 by its own GSM manufacturers' and operators' efforts of unborn WCDMA. No argument here? Correct? Globalstar's satellite phone will soon to show you what a true global phone is by using your claim of niche CDMA technology. We shall see in year 1999 instead of year 2001. We will see if global travellers will use your NOKA phone or Globalstar phones. Hmmmmmm. Are you sure ERICY and NOKA is winning in every front? ERICY's subsidiary-Orbitel has also need to pay royalty to QCOM to manufacture its Globalstar's phone. I think you must be proud as a Nordic European!!!! NOKA pay QCOM royalty on landline CDMA phone and ERICY pay royalty by producing Globalstar CDMA overlay GSM satellite phone. A proud Nordic European!!!!! I will not waste my time to read your post or argue with you anymore. We shall see. If you want to check out share price comparison. Go check GSTRF also. Also check back with us in the beginning of year 2000. We shall see. Good luck to you NOKA Brian H.