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: Rajala who wrote (15396)	9/23/1998 11:23:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 152472

Rajala, My apologies if what you say is true. 3g is obviously very important which is why we've spent so much time on it on this thread. In fact it's so important that it's makes these predictions of future growth rates of GSM vs CDMA ridiculous.It appears, at least until now, that everyone will migrate to some form of CDMA, so how can one argue that GSM will outgrow CDMA? It certainly looks like QCOM is going to play a role to a lesser or greater degree in ALL FUTURE 3G systems. So the question is to what degree? I think Greggs argument that Q IPR must be VITAL to what ETSI is calling WCDMA is irrefutable. The context of the whole WCDMA/CDMA 2000 discussion would make no sense whatsoever if this were not true. So at issue is not IPR's but as Maurice says,politics. To think that these companies ie ERICY will steal Q IPR is folly.Just look at the G* Limited Partners, investors in the Pegasus Consortium, some very large global corporations like GE, AIG, Daimler Benz, Airtouch to name a few. These firms have made investements in Q technology in its present iteration and are not going to simply sit by and watch while their interests are illegally compromised. The US gov will not let the IPR be ripped off either IMO, so we can forget about that. So we are left with two options as far as I can tell. 1)Preferable from a Q investors POV, and from a consumers POV as well,a single global standard, backwardly compatible with all the various systems emerges, Q gets a reasonable royalty,whatever that is, on everything, leverages its comparably vast CDMA experience, engineering depth,takes advantage of its built in royalty ie margin advantage over the competion to do at least a respectable job in the handset mkt, and skates off into a bright future. 2)ERICY and brethren refuse to license Q PR either because they feel it's too expensive or because they feel convergence places them at a large disadvantage vis a vis CDMAone and chooses to go their own way, extending the life of TDMA, reinventing the wheel, whatever.They had better find a genuinely good solution however, one that is at least nearly as good as CDMAone (two) migration path, and preferably from their POV better. So far anyway, they have no alternate solution, but if this scenario comes to pass, Q and CDMA one continues on its already well defined evolutionary path with daily anouncements of advances such as todays High Data Rate options etc, but will be locked out of Fortress Europa.Operators in the rest of the world will have tough choices to make, after all they're the ones who will decide in the end. Seems to me both scenarios look pretty good for Q although option 1, which is what Dr J is shooting for, is clearly better. dave

To: Rajala who wrote (15396)	9/23/1998 1:37:00 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala, Welcome. 3G is big. WLL is even bigger. Have you any thoughts on when, if or how the Q will get the billing software it needs to make it in this huge area big time? Can you provide us with any input on the state of the Q's affairs at New Friends Colony? Again, welcome. I am sure Tero, yourself and the rest of the committed will make for an exciting leap into a new season. nf PS Don't forget to add to your stash when it hits $38 {real US dollars}.

To: Rajala who wrote (15396)	9/23/1998 1:52:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala: Your faith in print publications (i.e. Businessweek) is commendable but misplaced. Your presumption posits that a staff reporter, working on a limited timeline, can accumulated sufficient information to opine, with absolute accuracy, on a complicated technological and legal topic such as 3G. Give me a break. In September of 1996 the Wall Street Journal published a story call "Jacob's Patter" which suggested that CDMA was technically flawed and would not deploy commercially. As you are probably aware, three months later the Sprint network began turning on across the country. Having spoken with the author, Quentin Hardy, I can assure you that he is neither dumb nor malicious. He simply interviewed some Qualcomm people, interviewed some other so-called experts, and chose to believe the latter over the former. He accurately reported what he believed to be true...but was absolutely wrong. Ditto the Businessweek article. I am sure that the B/W reporter spoke to some QC people and to some Europeans/GSM advocates. The story's ambiguous conclusion is not surprising since the reporter certainly received very contradictory opinions. Gregg