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 (16471)	10/14/1998 7:28:00 PM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

If I may be so bold as to clarify something I think Gregg is saying, in simple terms: Imagine you and I are neighbors. We each want to make some improvements to our property. I want to build a little shed to store a few things, you want to build a fence to get a little privacy and hem in your randy dog. One problem, the area you want to build your fence on is on my property. We really only dispute to what extent you are infringing -- you are agree there is some level of infringement. I'm willing to let you build it, but I want a reasonable return for letting you use my property. You don't want to pay me and disagree on the extent of the infringement. While we hash this out, talking about each other to the other neighbors, you drawing up plans for your fence, I can go ahead and build my shed, knowing good and well it is on my property and I've got every right to build it. Our fence dispute could take years. Surveyors, attorneys, bureaucrats, etc. all stick their noses in our business, and there you sit, no fence, and your dumb dog running all over the neighborhood, knocking up all the other dogs and messing in people's yards, your kids stumbling into the street to play, your wife sunbathing nude in plain view of everyone. All because you couldn't cough up a little cash for the use of my property. My shed keeps my things nice and safe and dry for years. There will clearly be a court battle, and all of the necessary injunctions against building W-CDMA systems, if this goes to court. Meantime, Q rolls merrily along building IS-95 all over the globe and eventually giving cheap upgrades to cdma2000. ERICY rots, stagnant and impotent. IMHO, with all due repsect to everyone on the thread. mmeggs

To: Dave who wrote (16471)	10/14/1998 7:45:00 PM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 152472

Why do you keep putting TDMA and GSM in the same group?

To: Dave who wrote (16471)	10/15/1998 2:10:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave, If QCOM agrees to reduce royalties now, what is the next concession they will be asked to make? Also, I have not seen one argument with any substance that the royalties are unfair. It appears to be just a bunch of whinners. Can you say "free market?" No that doesn't mean everything is free, it means people can ask whatever they want. The competition can continue to try to tweak their legacy TDMA systems to try to make them "Moore" efficient but Moore is not on their side. The whinners should have consulted Moore before they put all their eggs in one basket. About the only thing that we agree on is that the Q's IPR will not be "proven" to apply to broadband wireless unless it's challenged in court. I doubt QCOM's competitors are foolish enough to even test this in court. Consider this example: I invent a drip-less water valve with no seals to wear out. It is a brilliant innovation so I apply for and receive a patent without mentioning flow rates or valve sizes and I produce and sell millions of faucets, toilet and garden hose valves. They work better than pre-existing valves and I offer my invention to other manufactures for a 10% royalty on each unit sold. Now the Firefighters Manufacturing Cartel sees the potential in my valve but they say the royalty is too high. I respond that they can take it or leave it. Next thing you know, the Firefighter Cartel is announcing that they have been hard at work designing a drip-less valve with no gaskets and my IPR doesn't apply because this is a high-flow valve meant to move hundreds of times the volume of the valves I have been marketing. But when I see their design, I discover it uses the same innovations that make my valves work so well. Since my patent doesn't metion flow rates, I sue. Who wins? Broadband CDMA requires the same innovations that IS-95 required before it was feasible. If you want to keep beating this one to death, maybe you should try it somewhere that you might actually fool someone. You also make a big deal that Airyuckson has 19 patents that mention "rake receiver" while the Q only has 15. Big deal. I would be interested in the filing dates of these patents (not to mention the substance) which is something considered very strongly in IPR cases. Airyuckson is still playing catch-up.