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: tero kuittinen who wrote (14744)	9/9/1998 8:57:00 AM
From: brian h	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, The Japanese situation reminds me of "Rashomon". Apparently everyone sees what they want to see. Docomo was planning W-CDMA with Nokia years and years ago - they have wanted access into GSM markets and Nokia wanted access into Japanese markets. With W-CDMA both get their wish. To see IS-95 as some kind of motivation for W-CDMA is highly creative. The same applies to you too. Huhhhh? CDMA is out there a long time. A lot of companies are doing it in different ways (different spectrum). A self serving NOKA and NTT DOCOMO statement is just as creative as it can be. Do you not see it? Those companies that are still doing it include, but not limited to, IDC, STII, HUghes, HP and a list of may be 60 companies. Any of these companies can invent its terms and has a joint statements of NCDMA, FCDMA, XXCDMA, WWWCDMA, XXXCDMA, and YYYCDMA etc. In facts, IDC claimed it had the commercialized BCDMA system out there. Jim certainly can answer that for you. Some guy in India claimed its own version of CDMA just a while ago if you remembered. Why do you think NOKA, ERICY and NTT DOCOMO are so special? Even I can do it without any technical background. NTT DOCOMO used to be an investor of failed Nextwave which planned to launch IS-95 system right along side with QCOM. Of course NTT DOCOMO planned WCDMA a long time ago. Like NOKA and ERICY, it could not deliver a commercializable CDMA system at the time and now. Well, in fact, NOKA can not do IS-95 without a QCOM license. May be NOKA should invent itself a separate version of ZZZZCDMA without any license from QCOM before. That way you can really be proud of it. You twisted the facts again and again. ERICY and NOKA can do good now not because of the term WCDMA they invented but the momentum they got on GSM which you know is about to be retired by ERICY and NOKA 3 years from now. A good long term investment on NOKA with its current market value? I highly doubt it. May be I am too cheap to plug any money into a full valued investment like NOKA. Brian H.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (14744)	9/9/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

tero - threatening to block a new international standard if you don't get sky-high licensing fees is pretty radical. Nokia has invested huge amounts of money in W-CDMA and now one of the several companies claiming IPR threatens to derail the entire project if it doesn't get what it wants. If the IPR position of any of the other companies were anywhere near as strong as Qualcomm's then I would expect a trade to happen. 'We'll give you our wingus for your CDMA patents. Imagine what you, Qualcomm, can do for CDMAOne with the wingus.' Hasn't happened, implying that the other patents aren't in the same league. This is to be expected given that Qualcomm was, for a long time, alone in the CDMA wilderness. What if Motorola had some key patent and made the same threat unless iDEN compatibility was built into W-CDMA? This is somewhat akin to saying 'imagine what would happen if Hammermill (a paper company) had blocking patents on CDMA for paper mache'. It's completely absurd. Qualcomm has blocking patent because everyone decided that their basic technology was the future. The same is not true of Motorola or anyone else, but if it were, then more power to them. The point here is that you talk as if anyone could get a blocking set of patents. As has been discussed on this thread many times, this is very very difficult to do. Why is it that you value intellectual capital less than material capital? Is it because your favorite companies chose to invest in the latter instead of the former? I don't think the international bodies will regard IS-95 so crucial that it cannot be left out of W-CDMA, especially when making clock-rate chances at this point would be very expensive Tough t***y. Perhaps they should have thought of that before they decided to try to leave the originator of the technology out of the loop - to the extent of not even allowing them (the technology originator) to present at the ETSI 3g conference. Clark

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (14744)	9/9/1998 8:31:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: I am really very sorry that you cannot have an open enough mind about the facts. Many times on this board we have tried to explain to you the reality of the IPR situation. Many times we have tried to explain to you the reality of what ETSI going to CDMA means. Many times we have tried to get through your eurocentrism and explain many of the fine points of what is going on here. I understan that this is all just a difference in point of view but at some point patience runs out and people start to ignore you. I have hit that point. I have a brother just like you, no matter how much you explain the situation to him he still feels he is right. The only way to deal with him is to walk away. I am walking away. You seem to be a very nice and intelligent person and someday I hope that you come here to California and we can have a real person visit. Until that time keep this in mind, the only way that this situation can be judged is with 20-20 hindsight, until the point in time comes when that is possible (10-20 years) all of the arguements made are just so much hot air. I wish you the best and will continue to enjoy reading your posts.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (14744)	9/9/1998 10:02:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, you wondered: "If Qualcomm really believes in free competition, let's have free competition. Let Qualcomm build a 3G solution compatible with IS-95 and Nokia/Ericsson can counter with their 3G model that is compatible with GSM. Of course Qualcomm would get some reasonable licensing fee for W-CDMA IPR - just like any other company with W-CDMA IPR. Let the best man win. Let the market decide. How come free competition among different standards suddenly becomes undesirable when it starts to scare Qualcomm? If four digital standards in USA was supposed to be a great idea, how come W-CDMA, the upgrade of GSM, is now being forced into accommodating niche standards?" Free competition includes inventing your own stuff. Qualcomm has invented it. Free competition doesn't start by using the competitor's creative skills. Competition is creative skills. You wonder why the vapourwear standard that King Ericsson is producing should be forced into a niche standard with royalties to Qualcomm - [I know you actually put it the other way around, that Qualcomm's cdma2000 is the niche standard]. That is because L M Ericsson doesn't own the technology. As Michael [one of them] said, this is going round and round and the suspicion can grow that you don't really want to understand. Qualcomm has invented a cdmaOne overlay of GSM and will also be creating a cdma2000 overlay. L M Ericsson is just going to have to get used to the idea of paying Qualcomm a huge fee for the use of cdma technology or stand by and watch GSM gradually be absorbed into the Qualcomm world. Of course, L M Ericsson can invent their own cmda for mobile and compete with cdma2000 for GSM overlays. Good luck, they'll need it. It should be obvious to you that if a small company simply gives away its inventions and creativity to a huge competitor, it would be unable to compete in the absence of any special other advantage. Qualcomm's main advantage is ownership of cdmaOne and related technology. Your hypothetical competition is silly. Mqurice