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 (15522)	9/25/1998 7:00:00 PM
From: Ramus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave Your're right Claude Shannon published "A Mathematical Theory of Communicaton" in 1948. However, Qualcomm was the first to accomplish CDMA in a mobile environment. This is significant because for a long time Qualcomms detractors pointed out that this could not be done. If you have been following the debate(whether CDMA could work in mobile) then you must know that it has been raging for years. In the last couple of years Qualcomm and it's host of licensees have proven that CDMA can and does work in the mobile environment. No one else has done this, not Ericsson, not Nokia, not Motorola not anyone else. It is a vindication of Qualcomms vision that today, the field of 3G proposals are dominated by CDMAesq proposals. So if I were the leading companies in wireless today, I would do everything I could to keep Qualcomm out of the market place. Yes there is bias there and has been all along. And Qualcomm, facing the formidable task of convincing the wireless world, step by step, that CDMA is the way to go..of course bias there. The question of IPRs...who is telling the truth? Well, on the one hand you have leading companies with billions invested in legacy technology doing anything they can to hold on to their positions. On the other hand a much smaller company who proved mobile CDMA and has years of experience with it(more than anyone else). It seems probable to me that Qualcomm has IPRs that are essential to any CDMA mobile system that wants to achieve best performance. Like I said they have more experience at it than anyone else. Whether or not this alone will decide the issue is not known. But when it comes to assertions and bias and all I think Qualcomm is much more believable than the Ericssons and others out there. Dave, I see that you are an EE. If you go to the Qualcomm website you can read a white paper "The Technical Case For Convergence Of Third Generation Wireless Systems Based On CDMA". I've also read an Ericsson(I believe) rebuttal to this paper(very sorry I don't have a link). If you read them both and understand the technical issues then I believe you will come to a few conclusions. 1. That the W-CDMA proposal is an attempt to block compatibility with the IS-95 standard to the detriment of the W-CDMA standard. 2. It is an inferior(to IS-95) implementation of CDMA. One thing that should strike you right off are Qualcomms forthright and clearly spelled out arguments for convergence and why these would benifit the W-CDMA proposal. The arguments from the other camp were not clear at all from a technical POV. Let me know what you think after you've read these. W.

To: Dave who wrote (15522)	9/25/1998 7:45:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

"Ericy has stated that the standard does not infringe the Q's IPR and the Q says it does. Both statements are biased, won't you agree? " Bias does not make one wrong. The flat earth and round world societies might both be biased. One is wrong. Yes, Qualcomm is biased. I would be dismayed if they were not. Anyway, saying a standard does not infringe Qualcomm's IPR is playing with words. Of couse a standard doesn't infringe. They could make a standard and test product using totally Qualcomm's products and it wouldn't infringe the patents. It is the act of selling. This sort of playing with words is what crooks do. Clinton didn't have sex with Monica and L M Ericsson's standard doesn't infringe the patents. True. But inaccurate? Also, this isn't an election. The number of patents is irrelevant. What matters is the particular ones of interest. So what if L M Ericsson has a million 'cdma related' patents and Qualcomm has one 5, if the 5 are the only ones which matter? Mqurice