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 (11002)	6/1/1998 2:22:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, your responses to me and JMD on the W-CDMA IPR issues have been absolutely invaluable. For the first time I feel I really understand the essentials of the landscape. Before I could see some hills here and some valleys there, but the overall picture was a bit hazy. And I can see perfectly well that litigating their position forever in order to insist on every single thing they might want in the new W-CDMA standard may not be optimal either. The key of course as you point out is to isolate Ericsson...and then throw them a bone. Doug

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (11002)	6/1/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Clean	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

<<We have been investors here too long, and suffered to much angst and anxiety over the investment, to get cashed out in the $80s. I know some would applaud, but then again, these are the same people who really don't understand their investment.>> In most corporations, the the primary goal of management should be to maximize shareholder's wealth, meaning maximize the price of the stock. I would think, that at some point, QC management would at least entertain the thought of a merger or buyout, if for no other reason to maximize their own personal positions. This, considering the lackluster performance lately of the stock. As a shareholder, I agree that I would not want to be cashed out, but, what would most shareholders say? At the chance of taking a $30+ gain per share, I think most shareholders would jump at the chance. Regards.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (11002)	6/1/1998 3:31:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, absolute pleasure to read through your responses. Thank you. A few months back when I was in a moping phase re: the Mighty Q being a peanut amongst the elephants of telecom, my then line of thinking was that the Q ought to partner-up with some friendly gorilla on the theory that they were too itty-bitty to make a go of it on their own. Your nightmare scenario (what if in winning, they lose) adds a most interesting, if depressing, twist to my prior speculation. Clearly, if the Q got to be a big enough burr under Ericy's saddle, writing a check for $80/share would be well within Ericy's financial capacity. I see that poster "Clean" has already reminded us that management's sacred obligation is to maximize shareholder wealth to which I respond yes, but . . . .Nobody in their right mind would own Q for a lousy $30-$40/share profit. The risk/reward ratio is just not there. The Q has to be a 5 bagger--minimum--in order to maximize wealth consistent with risk undertaken, IMO. In that sense I would be greatly disappointed if Q management "did their duty" in Clean's view, cause it sure as hell wouldn't be mine. I'm still in favor of an independent Q as my first preference, but maybe with a little strategic partnering with LU/NT/ALA/TLAB to level the playing field--and maybe that's what Mexico will proffer. In any event Gregg, I take your point that if the Q's IPRs were shifting sand then there wouldn't be so much hulla-balloo. There is, therefore we're on solid ground. Man, is this a high stakes game or what? Regards, Mike Doyle