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 (11343)	6/10/1998 7:27:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Tero - I am reluctant to get involved in this "catfight" (since I have almost zero professional level knowledge of electrical engineering (or telecommunications technology)), BUT (you knew that was coming), since we have repeatedly seen things from the GSM-linked powers (like the thing posted here recently which rounded UP the number of GSM users, and then conveniently left out Sprint PCS's over 1 million CDMA subscribers in the CDMA count) I have concluded that there is pretty much no point listening to what the GSM "power structure" says. They will twist the facts (or worse) to suit their needs. They have lost all credibility with me, for one. Jon.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (11343)	6/10/1998 8:51:00 AM
From: Michael Allard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: You wrote: "Is Irwin's tactical genius still undisputed?" What has QCOM lost in taking the position that they will not licence their IPR for W-CDMA in the event the standard is specified to exclude cdmaOne backward compatibility without any technical merit? It forces all the players behind W-CDMA to; strongly consider QCOM's views (even if they disagree with them); it forces them to show the world that there is some superior technological reason for the W-CDMA specifications (somthing QCOM has been pressing for); it forces them to consider alternatives to the W-CDMA option, which QCOM believes will be technically and financially inferior to CDMA. I think QCOM believes all these avenues better their argument, so let's force the issue now. In the event the W-CDMA standard gets accepted in the future, QCOM could always change their mind and license their IPR. It certainly makes for a good fight doesn't it? If QCOM was so insignificant to the whole process as you imply, you must wonder why their name keeps coming up whenever ANY 3G option is discussed? If QCOM is so meaningless to the future, why is everyone that you mention so upset with them? When I consider this and read between the lines of every press release, I belive QCOM is holding a winning hand - any way you slice the 3G scenario. Sure, some solutions are better than others, but all are positive for QCOM. Good luck to all! (even ERICY!).

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (11343)	6/10/1998 3:23:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero so the points don't get lost: 1 Can you define "open standard" in a 200 words or so which would include any payment that might be required? 2 Selling a product or use of patented property is not greed. That is normal. Selling at "market rates" is normal. Not greed. 3 CDMA is fuelled by short-sightedness? I think the contrary. It evolved in Viterbi's, Jacob's and Gilhousen's minds from 1986, probably earlier, with a view to replacing the world's wireless systems. 4 W-CDMA without Qualcomm was accused by me well over a year ago of being vapourwear. So it has proved to be, hence the name I gave it then, W-CDMA-VW has proved to be correct. Without Qualcomm, they have got nothing. That is indeed the precise definition of vapourwear - King Ericsson is not wearing any clothes. Clouded only in the Nordic mists. W-CDMA-VW was a fraud on GSM customers who were misled into believing GSM was first to market and cdmaOne wouldn't succeed either technically or economically. Now the GSM chickens have come home to roost. 5 The Koreans are joining the game, hoping to leverage their early cdmaOne advantage by avoiding royalties and increasing market share against everyone. If licence fees and royalties were so onerous, it's amazing that every man and his dog have signed and paid. If people offer me something which is too expensive, I decline. Simple really don't you think. 6 Of course there is a broad consortium from Japan, Korea, Europe and the USA trying to get Qualcomm's IPR for free and cut off cdmaOne customers and providers. People love a lolly scramble. Why would they be "pissed off" at Qualcomm? Are you "pissed off" at Saab because you can't afford one of their really neat small aircraft, or Mercedes because you can't afford one of their luxury cars. Don't worry, they are in good company. Envy has been characteristic of humans since before they even made it to the chimp stage. Chimps and primitive humans have always ganged up on individuals or smaller groups to steal from them too. Why, even in Europe this century it was a popular activity. Mqurice Tero read!!!!!! For months discussions have been going to and fro about trying to bring W-CDMA and wideband cdmaOne into a single package. Much of the impetus has come from NTT DoCoMo, which would prefer the two not to compete head-on in Asia, and reluctance has been evident from some among European vendors.