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 (11086)	6/3/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Respond to of 152472

Tero: Your logic dies on the vine. If QC's IPR is not necessary for W-CDMA, how can Qualcomm be in a position to "block" anything? Why does its opinion matter and why would it have anything to say, at all, about the standards process? You can refuse to acknowledge the obvious, but please do not tell me what I know or do not know since you cannot appreciate the dollars that we have spent having independent patent counsel evaluate QC's IPR. You say you don't understand why the lower chip rate is detrimental to W-CDMA, but you simultaneously proclaim the same standard superior to IS-95C. Why? Is W-CDMA better "just because"? Isn't it remotely possible that Ericsson is simply trying to bifurcate the standard to prevent Qualcomm from seizing marketshare? Clearly operators with networks based on GSM don't want to be at a disadvantage to those who have already deployed IS-95, so its understandable why a number of constituencies would prefer an all new, non-backward compatible standard--but that doesn't make it better does it? You claim that Ericsson has had W-CDMA under development for "half a decade", yet the equipment is still in the "test bed" stage. That's a pretty tepid development pace don't you think? Moreover, how does one build equipment to a standard that has yet to be defined or adopted? Just how is W-CDMA technically different from IS-95C? You point to the chip-rate, yet cannot even describe the basic technological implications of the same. For all you know, Ericsson is just trying to parrot IS-95 with a slightly broader bandwidth and enough modifications to penalize the existing CDMA installed base. Before posting your aphorisms, isn't a little research in order? It's OK to have a strong opinion, it would just be nice to have at least some fact-based support for it. Moreover, you continue to avoid the obvious. Ericsson's newfound affection for W-CDMA is a direct consequence of the threat of IS-95 on its home turf. Given the coming standards convergence, I too consider it unlikely that IS-95 will make significant European inroads. But whether it is through royalties or its direct participation as an equipment vendor, I believe that Qualcomm will earn substantial profits from the Continent from whatever direct sequence spread spectrum standard is ultimately adopted. Why do you see the world as such a binary place? According to you, ERICY must win and Qualcomm must lose. The European position is right and the American position is wrong. Somehow us dumb Yanks chose the wrong digital standard, and even though you brilliant Europeans are now adopting the air interface that we perfected, we should bend over and accept whatever standard you dictate. How ludicrous. As I have said before, this is not a battle of good versus evil or right versus wrong...this is a fight about money and jobs. The Europeans have built a strong GSM franchise, but now must face a transition in its air interface. Unfortunately, a little American company perfected (and patented) a number of the elements of this air interface. The Europeans want to use as much of this technology as they can, pay as little as possible for it and make sure that they don't cede unnecessarily marketshare to the little American start-up that is causing them grief. That's the bottom line, like it or not. Best regards, Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (11086)	6/3/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

Tero - Your arguments are getting somewhat thin - But I do have an idea how tearing down a standard that has been in development for half a decade just before implementation could be a real pain in the ass. Huh? Re-read techweb.com This makes it pretty clear that the standard didn't even exist 6 months ago, or alternatively, they are pretty flexible. Either way, it seems pretty silly to be inflexible in regards to allowing backward compatibility with IS-95. There most certainly is not an IPR fortress around GSM, as evinced by the 25 companies hawking GSM phones, from Ferrari to Bang&Olufssen to Mitsubishi. I refuse to list them again. By that measure there must not be an IPR fortress around IS-95 either. There are a large number of manufacturers, and soon-to-be manufacturers (primarily in Japan). NOT! Gregg has continually said that the license fees that the average GSM maker pays are higher than the average QCOM fees. Do you know different? It appears not since you have fallen to providing spurious statistics. There is not one independent research outfit projecting any IS-95 penetration in Europe. Of course not. It isn't an open market. However, if 3G incorporates QCOM IPR, who cares. Or alternatively, if 3G is hung up long enough, and wideband IS-95 works into enough peripheral areas, maybe it will move into Europe as the populace revolts (sort of what happened to the French proprietary version of the internet). Either way, ... . Your only valid arguments are the ones about handset size/battery-time and installed base. Both are tough hurdles, and a certain amount of faith is required. (Although a lot less than 6 months ago before UMTS made it clear that CDMA was the wave of the future.) Clark

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (11086)	9/20/1999 1:50:00 AM
From: Bux	Respond to of 152472

Nobody seems to calculate just how much a failed bid for handset manufacturing and an unprofitable network equipment sales unit will eat into those profits. These would be legitimate worries. The scenario where somebody pays 80 bucks a share for QCOM might turn out to be quite the reverse of the "nightmare" it has been called here once this company has been reduced to take-over bait by massive corporate overreach. With hindsight, $80 ($40 post split) would have been quite a bargin last summer, no? Of course, those with foresight aren't kicking themselves in the butt, wondering how wealthy they might have been had they ignored your flimsy analysis. Bux