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: SKIP PAUL who wrote (14624)	9/6/1998 11:31:00 PM
From: His Pinkness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

TO: Gregg Powers I am a long time, long term holder of QCOM. I am familiar with all of your posts regarding Q's IPR and the arguable absurdity of the Q licensing its technology for less that what you and Q management think is fair market value. I am concerned, however, with the general business/political analysis being employed. Assuming that Q's IPR rights are unassailable and that Q's technology is irrefutably the best, Q is nevertheless beginning to resemble a sinking ship. There comes a point in time in the business and political worlds when parties will decide to screw a company even if it is not in the best (technological) interest of all concerned. I feel we are on the verge of just that with the Q. The Qs intransigence has managed to piss off virtually everyone, and significal geo-political regions. Even if the Q's position seems at this time to make the best sense for its bottom line, I am very concerned that its posturing will lead to disasterous results in the long run. The point of this post is to urge you to revisit this issue with management. I am sure that you have already done so on numerous occasions. But, the organization of the opposition is growing in numbers, strength and political clout. Most importantly, companies and countries with whom the Q must do business in the future are beginning to take the position of ABQ -- anything but Qualcomm. That is a position for which there may be no future healing. I want to make money out of my investment, not have to explain why I lost a ton.

To: SKIP PAUL who wrote (14624)	9/7/1998 2:48:00 AM
From: Shi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I thought Vodafone is a partner, but apparently it is not: Tim Harrabin, strategy director at Vodaphone plc (Reading, England), a provider of mobile-phone services, said: "We find this [development] very disquieting. Qualcomm would like to merge CDMAone with the Universal Mobile Telecommunication Standard. We would welcome this if it could be done, but this has been looked at in depth already. We haven't seen any proposals as to how it could be done." I thought the test of overlay was successful. Is this a change of heart on the Vodafone side? Shi