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: Gregg Powers who wrote (13645)	8/13/1998 9:29:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Gregg - thank you very much for the update. Jon.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13645)	8/13/1998 9:33:00 AM
From: Sawtooth	Respond to of 152472

Thanks for the update, Gregg. Sure appreciate your extremely valuable input that would be difficult (at best) to get, otherwise. Regarding <<But I remained concerned that this outright attack on QC's stock price has occurred shortly after the company responded to ETSI and refused to license its IPR for W-CDMA.>>...........How does Qcom's response to ETSI relate to analysts (you mentioned Cowen, ...) spreading misinformation, intentionally or unintentionally? Thanks. ...Tim

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13645)	8/13/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

We constantly hear of capacity constraints in re: handsets. Are there plans to build new factories and so produce more handsets? Or would they rather have their licensees deal with the increasing demand?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13645)	8/13/1998 11:09:00 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 152472

Thanx. [eom]

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13645)	8/13/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg - just read your post about the 2.00pm rumour. Now who might have been behind that nasty piece of malicious nonsense? There is and never has been any question that once they get rolling in the US then the Q could fulfill all our earnings requirements right here. The Q has to be careful because if rumours have been put about and whoever has done this feels he has further need to do then it has the potential to do real damage Now therefore once and for all pleaase get management to get the toughest firm of lawyers and investigators they can to go out and find these people and first injunct them and then sue the pants off them. It's not enough to leave it to the market becuase they could easily get away with a profit at the expense of investors. The Q is big enough and strong enough to do this on behaof of their shareholders and the public in general. Go Get'em. Regards, L

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13645)	8/13/1998 5:59:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, If Samsung handsets are being sold cheaply with the cost recovered in minute charges, then the Korean royalty collecting agency could indeed feel scammed. They perhaps agreed in good faith to a % royalty on handset selling prices, assuming that the value of the handset would be reflected in the selling price of the handset. Therefore they could expect a certain level of royalties. While one could argue that this is not a deliberate ploy to reduce royalty payments to the government agency, because it is common marketing practise worldwide, one could nevertheless argue that it is indeed a scam. Tax avoiding benefits can also be passed on to consumers by this process. A company buys a subsidized cellphone and signs a contract. They give the employee the handset. The minutes are tax deductible and the handset cost is depreciated. The employee gets free off-peak minutes and a free handset after hours, which is a nice little tax free perk. Normally a company can't give tax free perks to employees, at least in New Zealand, because they incur a fringe benefit tax. Tax authorities or the Korean royalty collecting agency could indeed make a case that they are being diddled. Hey, I hope Qualcomm's royalty bearing agreements aren't based on a subsidized selling price or we'll soon be moaning too. But as you say Gregg, this is relatively a storm in a teacup and will be resolved by some polite meetings or arbitration. Meanwhile, back in the jungle, Paul Krugman made some interesting comments in his lecture last night - he'll be cover story of the next Fortune apparently. "Could it happen here?" the theme of his lecture last night, meaning a financial crisis in the USA and perhaps European countries, was answered, after a conversion on the road to Damascus which he called his radicalizing event = the June currency intervention by Fed/Japan to ensure some stability while Clinton was in China, "YES!" Until then, he had thought it not likely. I'll comment more on his lecture after I catch up with Q.com. Meanwhile, Q.com's price drop seems in keeping with Dow/Nasdaq and the normally more volatile trajectory of Q.com's price. Mqurice $80 31 August looking dodgy with all this mayhem! No worries though, it just means we enjoy a smaller P:E. If the Fed prints as I'm sure they will, as there is not much irrationial exuberance in evidence now [me aside!], then the rebound could be very quick. Cash won't just sit rotting in the bank at 2% for long when Q.com reports vastly increased profits due to amazing handset and ASIC sales with big royalties starting to appear.