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: Gregg Powers who wrote (8600)	2/17/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

That was nimble. Wow. I do appreciate your slyly subversive style of mispresenting my opinions much more than the knee-jerk dismissals I usually get, Gregg. Naturally, Nokia and Ericsson were entirely right in dismissing the narrowband CDMA: customers and operators in Europe got a decent return for their investments in GSM and large GSM following drove down the price of both infrastructure and phones. Introducing narrowband CDMA in Europe and Asia just when GSM was taking off would have been a royal mess. Both customers and stockholders were well served. I'm quite certain that you are aware that most of the companies endorsing Qualcomm's CDMA are second string wannabes in telecom markets (most, not all). Korean vendors being a good example. They couldn't cut it in cut-throat GSM competition and chose the low road instead. While companies endorsing W-CDMA encompass five of the top five mobile telecom companies. Five out of top five. This is something else than the Korean companies... do you even remember their names? Average consumer sure doesn't. Even so, my bet on the Koreans coming into the W-CDMA fold stands. So the little tapdance you did around the endorsement issue isn't entirely convincing, even though it was remarkably well-coreographed. On the other hand, you're quite right in sensing that I'm out of my depth in this IPR issue. I can't point out the facts showing that Qualcomm isn't crucially important to W-CDMA. However, I do trust that NTT-Docomo, Nokia and Ericson have not maneuvred themselves into a corner in this. And I do trust the European commentators and Wall Street specialists in their opinon that Qualcomm is not a stumbling stone here. And I wouldn't bet on any company getting into litigation against the combined forces of world's top five telecom companies. So in this light one Total Telecom article and comments from Qualcomm's top brass do not convince me. I think the next six months will show us whether W-CDMA really revolves around Qualcomm. Tero