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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (1015)	9/27/1998 4:55:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 34857

Tero, me giving a multichoice question to explain William Plummer's slimeball characteristics isn't slander. If it was untrue, malicious and an attempt to damage his character it would be libel. It was an attempt to correctly identify his nature from his false words. His falsehoods showed ignorance, stupidity, etc. I even explained why his statements were absurd. Didn't you agree with all my points about his comments? I know you don't debate things by actual reasoning - simply slipping off in another direction, so I don't expect an answer. But I'm one for flogging dead horses too. I even drag Bill Frezza out from time to time for another beating. But meanwhile, the reason no other company is making the kind of demands Qualcomm is making is because no other company has the patent position for mobile CDMA which Qualcomm has built over decades. You say L M Ericsson has patents in CDMA, but until 2 years ago, they and their agents were still claiming that cdmaOne could not and would not work - although towards the end they conceded that maybe with Chicken Wire and Bubble Gum Qualcomm might be able to cobble together an inadequate system, expensive and collapsing under load while dropping calls. L M Ericsson claims to have been working on cdma in mobile through the 1990s - so were they lying or stupid in claiming it could not and would not work? Everyone, including L M Ericsson know that Qualcomm owns secure, essential, patents in mobile CDMA. That's why Qualcomm is getting multimillions in revenue from royalties right now. You say Qualcomm's demands are highly unusual? Surely you realize that a company has a duty to their shareholders to maximize the income they derive from property and effort. In some countries, business is not looked on as a philanthropic, socialist endeavour. It is intended to make money in large quantities for shareholders. If Qualcomm's demands are highly unusual in the wireless industry, it is because they have highly unusual strength in their patent and market position. While the USA is not dominant in wireless worldwide, there being only 280 million people compared with 5 billion worldwide, they are dominant in their international political and economic position. If they choose to defend Qualcomm's property rights, they are in a position to do it. 'Japan' and others have ganged up with L M Ericsson to avoid paying royalties on Qualcomm's property, by bringing maximum pressure to bear. It's interesting that people say money is not made from royalties, then squawk like crazy when Qualcomm is doing just that. Some have even claimed that cdmaOne is limited in its success because of onerous IPR charges. Wow, imagine how fast it would grow if Qualcomm foolishly gave it away like some internet software. 'Japan' did not join with L M Ericsson because cdma2000 is inadequate in any respect. Actually, Japan has not ganged up, some companies in Japan have. While it's true that the rest of the world need not adopt a USA derived standard, it is true that Qualcomm might deny them any other standard. If those countries under the existing free trade agreements then deny Qualcomm the right to sell cdma2000 systems in those countries, it should make for interesting discussions with USA government trade representatives. I can assure you that the USA can be quite overbearing when they see their interests threatened. Especially when Bill, my old buddy, has just been knocked around like some bull, wounded by picadores goading him to rage. I agree with the last 80% of your comments! The cdmaOne market is only just getting going. Next year will see some real growth and some serious competition. But already, growth has been spectacular. There were 7.314159 million subscribers at the beginning of 1998. Now 16 million. That is quite a fast growth rate. With big sales leading up to Xmas still to come. There should be well over 20 million by year's end. Go Nokia in cdmaOne. Hahaahah to Motorola. Maurice

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (1015)	9/27/1998 5:54:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 34857

Well, well, looky here. GSM people wanting Europe to allow cdmaOne and cdma2000 into Europe so that the free market can determine which is to be the successful system. Of course they don't really mean it. Being the greaseballs they are, they really mean, "Qualcomm gives us at no charge their property and we will put it in our systems and we'll see which systems the customer prefers. To help the customer decide, we won't allow cdma2000 or cdmaOne systems to be sold in Europe." Here is what was reported: "...At last week's announcement, GSM Alliance and UW-CC-the primary backer of time-division multiple-access technology-set forth a list of prin- ciples that Don Warkentin, GSM Alliance chairman, said was meant to "bring clarity to the policy debate, and bring the power of the market to bear on the standards process." The two groups agreed to press for free-market forces, and to back the hands-off position of the Federal Communications Commission over any attempts by Congress to dictate international standards." They wouldn't know a free market force if they fell over it in Europe. Maurice

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (1015)	9/29/1998 8:30:00 PM
From: Buckeye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

ml analyst today commented that he had concern about his 99 est due to the fact that noka has more "new" infrastructure customers as a percent of that biz than other telecoms and that many of these companies are dependent upon junk bond financing for working capital which is obviously drying up . . . this is the first i've heard of this . . . what percent of revs does infrastructure represent . . . thanks in advance for your always enlightening and entertaining comments