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: Dave who wrote (891)	8/17/1998 11:06:00 PM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34857

"Greg powers dont know didley about IPR's" And I believe you do. Many of your points are well taken. However you dont "know didley about politics", that we will say is my expertise. I promise you that the US government, and the FCC has been working, and will continue to ensure that US Technology is purtected. The USA is the bigest importer in the world, Europe will not risk a trade war over Cell phone standards. Especially when an agreament can be arbitrated. I will use Motorolla in the 1980's and the opening of Japanese markets as a case study. In this instence Japan was forced to allow US phones to be sold.. Qualcom has done many things poorly, however lobbying is their strength. I have spoken to several congressmen about these issues so I speak withg first hand knowledge. In my line of work I deal with a host of people from the top Engineers in the countries to CEO's of major tellco's to Patent lawyers etc etc etc. I feel very confident in my belief that the IPR's will hold up as laverage to broker a deal(in the worst case) Furthermore as an investement there are no other companies that are so oversold, and mispriced. There is so much misinformation that if I were less informed I could easily be mislead to believe GSM hype. I believe in my own judgement, and dont bother reading open press. Qualcom will be a 20-30 billion dollar company within the next 5-10 years. That is with or without IPR's. I hope you are long, and wish you good luck in any event.

To: Dave who wrote (891)	8/17/1998 11:37:00 PM
From: Quincy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

www3.techstocks.com He and his firm commissioned the IPR research by patent attorneys. I apologize for the semantics. You aren't the first person to doubt and check into Qualcomm's IPR position and won't be the last. "Bunch of cheerleaders"? I don't see a big US market for UMTS handsets since IS95 handsets enjoys AMPS fallback and already have enviable US market share. I guess I should be a little disappointed the US didn't let GSM take over North America. There are obvious advantages to worldwide standards. But, would providers have chosen GSM OR its evil twin: IS136/TDMA? Existing providers were choosing IS136 despite its sound quality problems compared to AMPS because it didn't require starting over on underlying infastructure. There were big cost savings realized by providers when reusing and co-existing with existing 800Mhz cellular. I don't know how well existing GSM providers are doing for attracting new subscribers. But, I go to the nearest electronics superstore (fry's) and find the CDMAOne booths packed while the GSM booth is deserted. Same thing with those kiosks in shopping malls. I guess I am not alone in demanding analog roaming. Despite GSM MOU claiming 80% coverage of the US, they still don't have commercial systems up in Chicago or Dallas. Even though my local GSM provider claims 100% coverage of California, I know from their website maps and personal experience that if I go too far east, I will not have GSM coverage. My travels are focused on my home state of Illinois (with expanding IS136 and IS95 coverage) with ZERO GSM coverage to date. 80% GSM coverage in North America seems implausable. I invest in Qualcomm and Lucent with a clear conscious knowing CDMA2000 will enjoy full access to the Q IPR it needs to work as advertised. As a bonus, IS95C/CDMA2000 does not mothball existing air-air interfaces for the 96% of existing voice users. There is no additional capacity to be gained. Since IS41 and GSM/MAP are two underlying protocols for call connection and billing, isn't this just software? Why isn't UMTS not IS41 compatible? No "smart card/chip"? I don't forsee a giant market for 3G wireless overshadowing existing voice-only markets. I don't forsee UMTS competing with IS95 on cost anytime soon. Nor do I understand labeling the liberal application of logic and economic sense "cheerleading". Good luck with your investments.