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: Ramsey Su who wrote (9484)	3/30/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

QCOM is being added to the S&P MidCap 400 at the close of trading March 31, 1998. Sterling Software will also be added to the MidCap 400.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (9484)	3/30/1998 6:46:00 PM
From: bananawind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Ramsey... Who wins in the end? I would argue that QCOM is the ultimate winner. The Phillips/Lucent partnership is licensing the technology to develop and sell handsets under the proposed ETSI standard. In addition to the up front license fee, that means royalties on 3G handsets in Europe (and every other GSM area) if the rest of ETSI's players must eventually do the same. If the QCOM patents are useless or can be bypassed some how, then they pay nothing in royalties. Without looking at the license and royalty documents, I wouldn't be so quick to make this statement. Since the announcement explicitly mentions making equipment to the ETSI W-CDMA standard, my going in assumption would be that any phones they made to that standard would fall under the agreement and presumably mean royalties to Q. If Q's IPR were useless or bypassable, Lucent certainly is already in an excellent position to know that as a cdmaOne licensee and CDG member. Why bother with this agreement and why do it now? If they eventually have to pay royalties on ETSI W-CDMA phones and no one else does, then they would be at a cost disadvantage. Have I misread your message, Ramsey? -JLF