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: Harvey Rosenkrantz who wrote (11155)	6/5/1998 2:07:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Harvey, reading to the end of Piekarski's statement was hard going! Of course I had to persevere as this involves all my money. As already said, Major was clear and what he said had direction. Piekarski's was a reasonable description, but didn't really say much except how good Ericsson is and everyone will be happy. One big worldwide happy family. cdmaOne growth rate is not 35% in subscribers. It went from 0 in 1995 [well, 10,000 in Hong Kong], to about 2 million at a squeeze in 1996 - give or take a few hundred thousand, to about 7.34159 million in 1997 as predicted precisely by moi in early 1997 and heading for about 15 - 20 million in 1998. Those growth rates are 1995 = infinite, 1996 = nearly infinite, 1997 = about 300%, not the claimed 35%, 1998 assuming the low figure of 15 million = 100%. Maybe he compared sales for May 98 with May 97, which would be a reasonable idea and I bet they were about 100%. TDMA growth rate exceeding cdmaOne as claimed is unbelievable. GSM growth rate might be right and I'm sure he didn't understate it. cdma2000 = great name! Better than W-CDMANA, or W-CDMA-VW or even WcdmaOne. Simply cdma2000. Excellent. And fits with the new organisation name which will approve the standard. Anyway, what does W-CDMANA stand for? The NA on the end? Anyone know. It seems to me that Qualcomm is on a winning streak with this standards business. The USA will support a valid home grown technology against the statis thugs of Europe provided it makes technological sense. Ericsson won't steal the IPR. Imagine having all local assets seized and markets cut off in Japan, probably China, definitely NAFTA! Probably NZ too - being a USA poodle. Incidentally, we are just now bringing our troops home from the Persian Gulf since the USA doesn't seem intent on worrying about Saddam. Mqurice PS: Hey, SurferM, tell them to knock off the off-topics and capslocks and too much rot! Go private etc. [Getting old and irascible!] Of course our own off topics are okay. Thanks for the urls for the two presentations!

To: Harvey Rosenkrantz who wrote (11155)	6/5/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

<<the last paragraph talks about a desire for backwards compatibility to all modalities. Did Ericy see the light>> I noticed that too. My reaction was blatant smoke blowing. A worldwide backwardly compatible standard with good data carrying ability is of course gonna appeal to all (realtively) fair minded politicians. So of course Ericcy says that is what they want. And then hide behind technical obscurantism as to why it can't be achieved without sacrificing high data rates, or some such nonesense. What worries me a bit is that the US Congress is probably a lot less likely to stand by a US company in a standards squabble than the Europeans are likely to stand by theirs. We have this ideology, at least, of open competition. Protectionism is a deeply ingrained instinct over there. Doug

To: Harvey Rosenkrantz who wrote (11155)	6/5/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: rhet0ric	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

If one reads through Mr. Piekarski's statement to the end, the last paragraph talks about a desire for backwards compatibility to all modalities. Did Ericy see the light or is there more smoke in the tunnel? He didn't say "backwards compatibility." He said "smooth transition path": "However, as stated earlier, the standard must enable a smooth transition from all existing digital standards, e.g., TDMA, cdmaOne and GSM, to help protect all existing investments and the consumers who use the current systems for a number of years while 3G systems are being deployed." Not necessarily the same thing. If it were, there would be no argument. My prediction: the Europeans will concede IS-95 backward compatibility in exchange for a reduction or elimination in royalties to Qualcomm. Qualcomm's bargaining position will be determined by the stance of the U.S., which will likely back them (this whole thing is geopolitical, anyone claiming it's about the "free market" or the "best technology" is naive), the result will be an agreed royalty somewhere between zero and the current IS-95 fee, and the race will be on. rhet0ric