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: DaveMG who wrote (13108)	7/29/1998 4:19:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave - I cannot comment on all of the Ericsson claims about WCDMA vs WBCDMAOne, but at least on one they are claiming as a technical difference when it is really philosophical: WCDMA does not use GPS to synchronize, whereas CDMAOne does. This means that CDMAOne is either cheaper (W-CDMA has to use fancy techniques to synchronize) or CDMAOne gets better performance. But W-CDMA is not dependent on the US provided single point failure of GPS. The trade is performance vs vulnerability (or ease of installation out of site of the constellation) and is really philosophical not technical. Given Ericsson's history of misinformation and that there is at least one such type of info in this paper, I am not inclined to believe too much that Ericsson has to say. Clark PS BTW, if anybody knows what the spectrum allocations are for the 3g systems, it should be a relatively easy matter to determine whether the different chip rates have any major effect on capacity. Anybody know (from an outside source neither Ericsson or Qualcomm)?

To: DaveMG who wrote (13108)	7/29/1998 8:51:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I think that there is one big point that needs to be clarified, Ericcson says that the standard was put forward and voted on in a completely fair and multilateral format. It also states that WCDMA is now a universal standard. 1) From the posts that I have seen here and the research that I have been able to do the process in ETSI is anything but fair and multilateral. This process is controlled by the large companies in Europe. If you don't have a presence in Europe then you have no standing at ETSI. The only reason that Motorola et al were allowed in is that they had the money to set up subsidiaries in Europe in time. As the number of votes that you get at the ETSI table directly depends on the amount of business that you do in Europe all of the companies that voted were already tied to GSM (GSM is it in Europe remember). There is NO chance that QCOM got a fair shake in that deal, I don't care what anyone says. 2) Ericcson says that in WCDMA it now has a unique standard that is unified across Europe, Asia, and USA. Well no duh!!! The only thing that you have to do in ARIB and TIA is to prove that your system works. These bodies do not have rules that force only one standard on the entire market ETSI does. ARIB and TIA may still accept cdma2000 (and I humbly suggest that they will) and thus the only market that won't be served is the market controlled under ETSI. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! One more thing. Who the heck does Ericcson think that they are? They have absolutely no right telling QCOM to give up an asset like their IPR for free, where do they think they are in the USSR? I would really love to go on a swearing rant but I will exercise some restraint. Without QCOM IPR this arguement is completely and totally academic. Ericcson is dealing from a position of total and complete weakness and is just trying to lie their way into some kind of position. These views are my own and have no reflection on my company.