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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (673)	6/5/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 34857

Tero, I agree that there has been distasteful remarks made about Ericy in particular on the Q thread and am no proponant of such. I think in the past few days both ERICY and NTT DoComo have publicly admitted that QC has crucial IPR for 3G as it's presently configured, regardless of chiprate.This is an important admission and means that without QC they have to go back to the drawing board.Ericy is in court vs QC because they claim QC is infringing on patents they hold re "soft handoffs". As Gregg stated, whom to my knowledge so far has never made any factual lies or mischaracterizations and whose firm has apparently done extensive patent research on these crucial issues, even if it is true that Q i using Ericy handoff technology, that wouldn't negate any of Q's WCDMA claims. I don't really see what this whole thing has to do with Europ.vs American issues, although QC feels that they, ie CDMAone have been and will be locked out of Europe if WCDMA becomes the "standard", which they think is unfair because the US is open to anyone who wants to compete. I'm not convinced that all this competition here in the US is benefitting consumers because standards fragmentation is a pain in the neck, prohibitting real roaming at this point, which is what thestandards debate is all about.If you don't think GSM should be forced to accomodate TDMA and CDMA then why should they accomodate GSM and we're back where we started, multiple standards.As I said on the Q thread last night, I have come to believe that what is being fought about at this point is whose existing networks are going to have the leg up in migration to the next gen, and sice CDMAone was designed to evolve to some form wideband CDMA they appear to be at an advantage. Ericy is clearly worried about this. Until "proven" otherwise, I accept Q's statement that there is no meaninful performance degradation in the lower chip rate. Ericy is trying to create a structure which penalizes CDMA and QC doesn't want to let that that happen. Why should they? What's in it form them.? They will be able to do WCDMA one with or without ERICY. Your love Nokia has been in my opinion surprisingly quiet, and I believe that's either because what they say is not reported here in US, or because they can go both ways.QC is telling ERICY to piss or get of the pot. If you are correct and that they are overplaying their hand,that ERICY and Nokia ,NTT can do it without them, it may well mean the demise of the co. If you are wrong, then when it is to Ericy advantage, they will compromise. It's concievable that we'll go on for a while like this, claims counterclaims,lawsuits, etc. I believe this plays to Ericy's advantage. They are the bigger, older more established co. This debate is retarding investment in CDMA one.. It's been months since I've read anything about Q's exhorbitant royalty rates. In the Ericy statements of late there has been no mention. Is the Euro press writing about this . Please pass me some links... German,French, no Finnish please..QC has already said there will be no licensing fee for current licence holders, only additional royalties. ...Dave

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (673)	6/17/1998 1:13:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Nokia seems to have done so much right! And they are getting their just rewards. Even with cdma2000 they are in great position. Whichever way things go, they will be in the box seat - licensed for cdmaOne, selling their own handsets and own chips, with a wealth of marketing and handset design experience. They have done and are doing a great job. They had the foresight to adopt cdmaOne in its infancy. They will no doubt ensure they remain in the forefront as it develops and every indication is that they will succeed admirably. But, You are labouring under a misunderstanding here: -------------------------------------------------------------- "If you think that my calling Qualcomm "parasitic" is surprisingly venomous, how about those "GSM nazi" comments and those endless "socialistic Scandianavia" slurs regularily regurgitated by Qualcomm enthusiasts? How come that is humor but any Qualcomm criticism is venom? Have you often challenged people for using references of nazism and communism in connection with Ericsson and Nokia? I think there's a clear double standard in how you can use semi-racist insults against foreign companies but if somebody dares to suspect the business strategy of an American firm it is instantly condemned as nationalistic bias." --------------------------------------------------------------- Allow me, as the coiner of the aptly descriptive GSM Nazis, to point out that it was totally in response to the nasty, defamatory accusations of fraud in regard to Mr Irwin Jacobs by that employee and subsequently consultant to L M Ericsson a Mr Bill Frezza. And I always used it scrupulously in conjunction with the phrase, "CDMA Mafia" which was a name given to Qualcomm and those associated with earlier attempts to create IS-95 CDMA. "GSM Nazis" was accurate and remains so and perhaps even increasingly so as L M Ericsson continues their propaganda about CDMA, their patents, their position as inventors of CDMA and YOU also propagate the lie that Ericsson were dominant inventors and creators of CDMA in mobile phones. If the shoe fits Tero, you better wear it! Now, perhaps you don't know much what the word Mafia means, but it is not the name of a church group and their modus operandi were comparable with Nazis. Don't pretend that it was used in a cute or joking manner either because a reputable man, who spent his life in pursuit of technology and created with his friends cmdaOne for the world was accused of fraud. He was accused of dishonesty. There was a smear campaign to discredit IS-95 CDMA, Qualcomm and Irwin Jacobs. L M Ericsson were the focal point of that denigration. Now you and they are continuing efforts to attempt to deny Qualcomm and Irwin Jacobs their IPR with disparaging comments about leeches, greedy etc etc ad nauseum. I believe it is because of your background from a socialist, totalitarian realm [= European] where confiscation of individuals and their property was the norm - "all for the greater good" of course. Messrs Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Leif the Lucky Ericsson, Marx [not Harpo and sibling] being exponents of the system. IPR is vital to civilisation. Tribalism and collectivism leads to a loin cloth life as individuals are suppressed. Don't trot out your "racist" label to try to escape the accusations - the accusation applies to the state of mind, not the DNA. Somebody said Nokia doesn't profit from IPR? Oh yes? Okay, I'll make a total clone and sell it with the Nokia name - nobody will be able to tell the difference. Already many products are extant in the world like that. Do you think Nokia would squawk? Go on, answer that one question. Would Nokia object to a complete copy of their IPR, trade dress, trade secrets, patents or whatever you want to call it? Of course. And rightly so. Should they be forced to sell that IPR or have it confiscated? Of course not! Maurice [bloody thieving GSM Nazis trying to steal IPR from the cmda2000 Mafia] - and I never claimed it was humour. I don't think it is funny at all. If I was Irwin Jacobs, I'd have felt insulted, demeaned and pretty angry. And of course, being a New Zealander, I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not a nationalistic USA/Qualcomm supporter. I'm more inclined to the Finnish ways - small, independent etc etc.