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: Dave who wrote (14773)	9/9/1998 11:32:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

O.T. (10-year JGB yield). Here is a portion of the A.P. story on Japanese financial markets for Thursday. September 9, 1998 Filed at 9:49 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press TOKYO (AP) -- The yield on the benchmark No. 182 10-year Japanese government bond fell to 0.885 percent from Wednesday's finish of 1.005 percent, driving its price up to 113.93 from 113.04. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company

To: Dave who wrote (14773)	9/10/1998 12:33:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave - IMO, the Q should re-evaluate their position and work on cross-licensing deals. If not, they could be marooned on their own little CDMA2000 island. Why is it that you believe that Qualcomm should re-evaluate their position, but not Ericsson? This is not meant to be antagonistic, but is truly a curiousity question. In other words, why is Qualcomm closer to failure than Ericsson IYO? Clark PS My view on it is that the trade for Ericsson is: Miss the ITU deadline and have no 3g product to sell for several extra years vs (if they give in) paying 1 or 2% royalties. The trade for Qualcomm is: they receive no royalties from WCDMA, but CDMA2000 has no competition for several extra years and in that time they might gain an insurmountable lead and in any case they can still manufacture WCDMA when it comes out vs. (if they give in) they get no royalties, and little backwards compatibility, and no one will buy their current systems (CDMAOne and CDMA2000) because there is no upgrade path to the standard. In other words Qualcomm doesn't really lose big except by giving in. Ericsson, on the other hand, only loses big by not giving in (unless you think that 1 or 2% royalties is a bigger loss than, say, a two year delay and the competitive disadvantage that causes.) By that reasoning Qualcomm's position is much more firm than Ericsson's.

To: Dave who wrote (14773)	9/10/1998 1:47:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave, Did they say they'd pay 7.314159% of gross sales for 20 years? Plus $1bn initial payment? Plus backward compatibility with cdmaOne. Plus the Qualcomm chip rate. All I saw them say was they'd give a nominal finder's fee for a couple of patents they say they don't really need or words to that effect. I'd also set a pre-requisite that the European countries agree that cdmaOne and cdma2000 can be freely sold in Europe. Philips/Lucent has already agreed to a cdma2000 licence. Quite a big island! It is in the early days that licensing is needed. Those days were the late 1980s and early 1990s. Those days have gone. Once a company is big enough, licensing other companies is more of a distraction and brand contamination than an advantage. It might be that L M Ericsson is undesirable as a licencee. It is a bit like people rushing to buy stock in a company AFTER the problems are all solved, sales are booming and profits are huge. If you check a few graphs, you'll see that the cheap prices are in the early days when risks are high, competition dominant and there is little light at the end of the tunnel. The same for using Qualcomm's property. The cheap days have gone. Now I want very big payments for the years of no dividends, high risks and creativity by Qualcomm. Mqurice