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: Sawtooth who wrote (14508)	9/3/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 152472

Ericsson is just so cute.. Typical ERICY disinformation. Of course the press release does not say that QC's IPR is not involved...it says that there is no VALID IPR involved. So by unilaterally taking the position that QC's patents are invalid, ERICY gets to disseminate an outright falsehood. I will savor watching this arrogant and deceitful company getting its comeuppance. Best regards, Gregg

To: Sawtooth who wrote (14508)	9/4/1998 8:08:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tim A. Re your Hmmm comment on Clarification of Ericsson CEO's statement. Puzzling. Seems like two msgs there. CEO is portrayed as an "optimist" who thinks that amicable talks can permit Ericsson to reach to find a solution for standards and IPRs. But that no reason to believe ETSI's present WCDMA standard would infringe on any valid IPR's claimed by Qualcomm. Old carrot and stick approach? There is of course the question of the exact wording used here - assume the words were chosen carefully by lawyers - most "clarifications" are - viz. White House variety. Also the question is why was this "clarification" issued at all - its purpose. Do we assume this is just to turn up the heat another notch on Qualcomm? Do these careful words mean anything at all re the solidity of the Q's IPR's as defense? Gregg has made clear that he is convinced re Q's IPR's. Is the trick that a "standard" can not infringe on a "valid" IPR? Or what? I for one accept Gregg's assurances. So what is going on here? Chaz PS Is this continued drumbeat re Japan's DoCoMo testing and Ericsson's CEO gratuitous "clarification" a partial reason for the Q's weakness lately in addition to the general market decline? Views anyone? Chaz