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: Gregg Powers who wrote (15329)	9/23/1998 3:25:00 AM
From: Rajala	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, >Your conclusions are flawed for several reasons, the most >important being that you are assuming that Businessweek's >facts are perfect... Hmmm... they are not my conclusions. They are the conclusions of Business Week, which I understand is quite authorative in business matters (not in telecommunciations, I admit). They offer a view differing from either QCOM ("we have the legal power to stop W-CDMA") or ERICY ("we don't need QCOM IPR's at all"). Do you buy either of the claims? BW may not be the judge but at least it is pretty objective, which is extremely valuable. >(1) If W-CDMA did not include QC's IPR, then ETSI would not have >asked Qualcomm to license such IPR, i.e. why ask for something you >don't need or don't want? Why not? Maybe QCOM has got some smart gimmicks that improve the performance. I find it very likely that they have. >(2) if the European's could safely and legally circumvent QC's IPR, >then there would be no debate; companies such as Nokia and Ericsson >would be busily deploying W-CDMA around the world (as opposed to >waging a PR campaign to pressure QC to change its position) They are developing, already many years. Its not ready, however. >(3)despite much talk of W-CDMA product, all of Nokia's and Ericsson's >press releases have been carefully worded to indicate that these are >"test" or "demonstration" systems, i.e. the Europeans know that they >cannot deploy W-CDMA commercially without infringement This is because they are "test" or "demostration" systems. BTW I have heard a number of demonstration systems from Ericsson but haven't heard that Nokia would have one, has anybody heard anything??? >(4) if Qualcomm felt that its position was weak, it would have >acceded to ETSI's demand and licensed its IPR for >whatever royalties it could get, i.e. it's better to get something >than to get nothing. There's a bigger cake here than some royalties. Paradoxically current W-CDMA is compatible with GSM but not with CDMA1 (CDMA-part in the name referring merely to how the final air interface is organized). A large network can cost $1bn so it is of extreme importance for the operator to choose now the technology that 3G can be built later on. That is why QCOM is very concerned about the backward compatibility. If QCOM can convince - by any means possible (and by George they seem to be trying) - ETSI to accept this backward compatibility to CDMA1, CDMA1 will be safer choice for an operator. If not... - rajala

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (15329)	9/23/1998 6:52:00 AM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, I posted this link before but nobody commented on it so I'll ask for your opinion as you have a greater understanding of these IPR issues than most. If I'm reading this right it seems that two standards that were to be submitted to the ITU have now joined forces and they have come up with w-cdma/na. So now it looks like there will be two proposals from the US w-cdma/na and cdma2000. Your views on this release will be appreciated. Jim interdigital.com