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: rhet0ric who wrote (11190)	6/5/1998 3:50:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

rhetOric: I don't think IS-95 is likely to get orphaned in either case. Just like IS-136 has persisted, despite the head-to-head warfare between GSM and CDMA, IS-95 has a large installed base throughout the Americas (and Asia) that is already quite large and expanding rapidly. Also, remember that W-CDMA wouldn't even be commercially available until 2002 to 2003 while wideband cdmaOne would be available to the IS-95 community two, maybe even three, years earlier. You also appear to be presuming that W-CDMA is somehow superior to IS-95C. It isn't. That's kind of the whole point. So assuming Ericsson gets its way, the European community will get to wait two to three years for a proprietary CDMA standard that is no better than they could have now...but ERICY would have probably killed Qualcomm's efforts to overlay IS-95 style CDMA in Europe. All of which points up a major weakness in the Ericsson strategy... If QC holds firm and refuses to license its IPR on unfavorable terms, the IS-95 community can continue to sell its product worldwide while ERICY's proposed standard could wind up tied up in litigation for the foreseeable future. Ericsson would have blessed CDMA, and admitted its superiority to TDMA-based GSM, only to find itself incapable of selling products based on its proposed standard or spending years trying to circumvent QC's IPR. All else being equal, operators that are extremely concerned with pan-European roaming would lean toward whatever Ericsson proposes. Everyone else would be left looking at a highly robust (and available) CDMA standard in IS-95, with a growing worldwide footprint and dominant North American share. It's really pretty simple. If Qualcomm really felt threatened, it would have adopted a more conciliatory position and probably licensed its IPR already. People seem to continuously miss the point that Ericsson is actually fighting to get Qualcomm to license its technology--the debate is simply over the terms. This should be cause for celebration rather than a source of consternation. Oh well. Gregg

To: rhet0ric who wrote (11190)	6/5/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I don't think you've heard Gregg: In scenario one, Qualcomm sticks to its royalty fee, and W-CDMA is non-compatible; in scenario two, Qualcomm doesn't charge a royalty, or charges a negligible one, and W-CDMA is IS-95 compatible. Gregg has said that W-CDMA cannot be implemented by anyone, backwards compatible w/IS-95 or not, without obtaining licenses from Qcom. The carrot for Qcom to compromise somewhat is to get CDMA wide rolling faster, so as to start garnering royalties, and equipment sales possibilities in Europe soon. Otherwise it can fight Ericy and allies in court if they attempt to implement otherwise. And license the non-GSM world to do the new standard. Doug

To: rhet0ric who wrote (11190)	6/5/1998 3:59:00 PM
From: bananawind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

rhetOric, I'm sure Gregg will have a better answer to your question, but I'd like to make a few points. First, why assume the only two possibilities are high royalties (assume you refer to the current 5-6% that has been reported here) and zero (or negligible) royalties. Why not the middle ground, say, at 3%? Seems to me this is the most likely outcome of the current controversy and is likely what Ericy is after in the first place. So, what would this mean financially versus the current royalty rate for cdma2000. Well, lets imagine its 2002 and there will be 75 million new worldwide subscribers this year. No GSM/cdmaOne/TDMA split, just all W-CDMA3%. At $200 per handset that's $15 Billion on which Q's 3% cut would be $450 million, or about $6 bucks a share. This is way oversimplified, but the implications should be clear. 3% of everything is a heck of a lot better than 5% of something one-third as large. I've reached the conclusion that this is where we are headed. It was a done deal when Ericy and Nokia capitulated to their customer's demands for a spread spectrum 3G interface. The rest is all face saving and negotiating for the lowest royalty rate possible. No way Irwin and Harvey are going to screw their customers and give away the competitive advantage gained when the customer stuck his neck out to support a new, commercially untried, technology. Its not their style. -JLF