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: Maurice Winn who wrote (15612)	9/28/1998 9:51:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Mqurice, >(ETSI is) Just one big lovely, cuddly, socialist, kleptocratic pack >of gangsters the way you describe it. Hmmm... looks like I must choose my words little bit more careful next time. >Qualcomm and the USA have got all the size they need to defend >Qualcomm's property. Sure. There are two gaping holes in your thinking, however. 1) US is not unified in this issue, they are pushing 3-4 standards. 2) Strong IPRs either exist or then don't. >He (Dave) and I suppose you, have got some barrow to push. No barrow but I'm ready to bet. This is like a horse race with the difference that you can bet till the finish. You win if you get the picture a little before most of the other spectators. So you communicate with others trying to draw information. Obviously if the others are stuck with complete absurdities such as CDMA1 beats GSM (Mqurice, ask NZ operators when will CDMA1 come there? Answer: never) you have to debate it, maybe it turns out the other guys have some sound analysis behind their thinking. So, supposing US will not yet send the Tomahawks to teach the ETSI commie bastards a lesson, the question remains: how strong are Q's IPRs? Here's Q's story: "We do not believe nor did we indicate that W-CDMA would in any way reduce royalties payable to Qualcomm." (Mr. Jacobs himself, see 15579 by The Prophet himself) And E's view: "Despite a thorough investigation, Ericsson has found no reason to believe that ETSI's present WCDMA standard would infringe upon any valid IPRs claimed by this company." (see Ericy's white paper) Am I imagining it, but does the other look little "rounder", like the new Coke? BTW I have seen few fleeting references on this thread that ETSI has de facto admitted that W-CDMA requires Q's IPR. However, looking for actual quotes I find no such thing, just some non-committal "ve visch no lavsuits". Can anyone help? Any direct quotes? - rajala