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 (11016)	6/1/1998 6:35:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, I hate to sound like a pathetic sycophant to you - please don't throw me off your lap. But me too! In regard to Irwin, Andrew and the MightyQ gang. I've followed Qualcomm closely since first meeting a few individuals by a fluke in 1991. Without wishing to sound weird, if I could have built a company in my dreams, this is it. They've built cdmaOne, which I'd half-baked thought of in 1989 from my old engineering maths, ignorant of the fact that it had existed since 1948. I wonder whether our dreams create the reality or do we seek a reality which matches our internal patterns, attaching ourselves to it like a limpet. Or both in some weird quantum duality. Is there even good and evil? You clearly dumped Ericsson in the latter category. Which I too have done. Sadly for the thousands of people who do their best in good faith for what is a company which has achieved enormous good as shown by their huge size and profit, gained in competition by people voluntarily [for the most part] buying their products and services. Anyway, MightyQ is simply admirable as are all the people in it with whom I've had contact. They got my life savings on the strength of it. Now spread into Globalstar and Techniclone too. A takeover? Poland got raided by an unpleasant band of thugs, so it can happen. Good people don't have inherent protection from mosquitoes, lions or predatorial people. Evolution is a harsh taskmaster. A takeover of Qualcomm is in the offing and a Motorola executive was reported as saying, in frustration at their cmdaOne handset efforts, "Okay, I'll just buy Qualcomm!" So, as so often in life, it comes down to the price. Why do we see Qualcomm as worth over $100 while others only $50 today? With many thinking it worth far less. Yahoo costs heaps. Microsoft soars. Qualcomm sinks. The power of the herd. But if Ericsson made an offer for a bunch of Qualcomm shares, surely Lucent and Motorola or many others wouldn't lightly see it grabbed by a competitor for only $80. Imagine the nightmare for Lucent if Ericsson owned Qualcomm for $80 a share. No more standards battle. Lucent would face not an 800 lb gorilla but a million tonne Godzilla. I'm happy to let things lie in the lap of the markets. Provided all genuine buyers are allowed to bid. I reckon Lucent would use quite a lot of their lately enhanced market capitalisation to enhance their cdmaOne portfolio. I'd be happy with that and they can have all my shares for only $150. I've got other dreams now that cdmaOne is alive and kicking. Irwin and co aren't getting any younger, Harvey has run away from home. cdmaOne would be mainstream and primetime. Maybe it's time. But $50? Mqurice [Pssst, I bet as I write that Ericsson is buying stock on market - you silly people handing them over at $50 might have a jaw on the floor when you see the final takeover price].

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (11016)	6/1/1998 9:24:00 PM
From: bdog	Respond to of 152472

Thanks for your response Gregg. Actually I'm not surprised at your characterization of Dr. J. Something about the company's operating style - both proactive and reactive, suggests a calming integrity at the helm. Your sense of the man further reinforces my gut sense that the Q isn't likely to be acquired at anything like $80/share even in Murphy's most nightmarish scenario (knock wood). Ericsson seeking to acquire after all their previous nonsense would only serve to proclaim something of QC's actual value. I have to think that the majority of shareholders have some vision of what this company could be and would be disinclined to leap at a fast buck in the face of same.