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 (15619)	9/28/1998 10:38:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala - Tsk, tsk, tsk - You are letting your bias show. 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". The Total Telecom article that was posted was a lot more than just a 'we'd like to avoid lawsuits' although, as I admitted, a little less than the completely clear quote that I remember. But perhaps in order to understand this you need to understand that IPR is very very rarely black and white. Thus, a very strong statement about their (ETSI's) desire to avoid IPR issues would be an indication that Qualcomm has a good position. So even if you tortuously interpret the article I posted as being such a position statement it is still a pretty good statement for Qualcomm. Alternatively, you could try putting the shoe on the other foot - perhaps you should try to find a quote anywhere where ETSI claims that Qualcomm IPR is not required for WCDMA. For every article you find of that sort, I'll find 3 or 4 which imply the opposite. (This is an easy promise to keep since I doubt you will find any. Although Hilldebrand made several comments early on, all on the strength of Qualcomm's position, the ETSI seems to have clammed up now. The only comments are by industry analysts.) Based on this preponderance of evidence I'd say Qualcomm is in a good position. Clark

To: Rajala who wrote (15619)	9/28/1998 11:05:00 AM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Hey everybody, let's drag this horse out one more time and give it a good swift kick. If there isn't at least some question in Ericsson's mind regarding W-CDMA and Q's IPR, why acknowledge the existence of this puny $3 billion dollar company? Why offer to "trade" patents? Why suggest a system with "low" royalty payments? (All from the so-called "white paper") And of course ERICY would say they don't need the tech. When in any kind of negotiations, it is usually poor tactics to admit to your adversary's claims. Somehow this is just not an effective strategy to wring concessions from them. mmeggs

To: Rajala who wrote (15619)	10/16/1998 4:00:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

It's nice that SI keeps things for us. Did you notice that Australia is going to have a big cdmaOne network operating mid 1999? Telstra will be the service provider. Telstra is the big company in Australia and they currently have both GSM and analogue networks. My ex-neighbour used to be Telecom's International Sales Manager and now works for Telstra in New Zealand since Telstra decided that the New Zealand market was worthwhile. They were trying to buy Bellsouth, but some pommy company, Vodafone got it - oops, hope I haven't got forgetful now because there was a USA company after it. Anyway, Telstra didn't get it. Though they have an agreement with Bellsouth's GSM network in NZ to act as an agent. NZ will be selling 2GHz spectrum next year and Telstra already owns some spectrum, so they'll be able to provide a cdmaOne network here too. Which will fit nicely with Australia as NZ and Australia have a close relationship. Leap Wireless International has bought lots of Australian spectrum. They'll be bidding in NZ. The Ministry of Commerce expects up to 5 cdma networks. The fairly mature GSM network has not made much money at all. Rather sad really after the fanfare about the future, tomorrow, today and an advertising campaign which baffled everyone. In the end it was just for a cellphone which you couldn't use many places. You said in post 15619: "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, you still think GSM beats cdmaOne? You can perhaps figure out now that your 'never' answer is going to be wrong soon too. As you say, maybe I have some sound analysis behind my thinking. Please send consideration for this advice as a T/T for US$1000 to: Maurice@cdmaCellular.co.nz Yes, it is an email address which might surprise you since you were sure there was never going to be cdma in NZ. Mqurice