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: marginmike who wrote (16500)	10/15/1998 5:36:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Not so fast there marginmike, "We have all conceded that nobody knows how the IPR debate will end. We are saying that, To Us, it really doesnt matter. So leave the horse alone, the damn thing's dead!" I think I saw a bit of life, so I'd just like to flog it a bit more. We do know how the IPR debate will end and it does matter to us. There will be a rout of L M Ericsson and their 4 year long charade. They are sure to have a high data rate CDMA by QUALCOMM system operating, with adaptive antennae arrays, macro, micro and pico cells in hierarchical layers. With a few bells and whistles to confuse the troops. Did you notice them putting some technical guff in their latest rant to confuse any Congressmen, lawyers and others who might actually try to decipher their drivel? How weak. QUALCOMM's position is clear and intelligible to lay people - well, nearly lay people anyway. You are right that 'nobody knows' in that the world is so variable that we don't know what will happen until after it happened. But we are designed by nature as future predictors, environment adaptors and probability analysts. We are pretty damn good at it too. The proof being that we are all still alive. With complex things like human behaviour in big groups, it is more tricky to predict what will happen than with simple things like engineering structures in an earthquake. But we do it every day, and by and large make a decent fist of it. We really do know, without even reading all the patents and understanding the technical gizzards, by inference from what experts in the field have already agreed and many other factors, that QUALCOMM has got a very, very robust IPR position. I've read all of Dave's[clone3] stuff and I can't find anything to make me even think twice about QUALCOMM's position. Well, three times anyway. L M Ericsson has logical errors in their position which make them seem irrational or simply insane. Possibly they [the management] are simply stupid. Not unintelligent, but defective in personality and ignorant in technical, legal and market matters which make them unable to come to sound business positions in this situation. I've seen such things happen in BP Oil International. The big problem which arises is the gap between technical people and marketing people. The marketing people too often get to fill all the boss spots. Maybe that is what's happened in L M Ericsson. They get stuff wrong and have egos which are immoveable. They might well be intelligent in some spheres, but pig ignorant in others. This seems to be what is going on with L M Ericsson. Whoa, look at that IPR horse get up and go!!! Mqurice

To: marginmike who wrote (16500)	10/15/1998 8:37:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>Dave are you eve a shareholder? We have heard your IPR argument... >.... >The bottom line is that CDMA will grow by leap's and bound's >with or without ETSI or European integration. This has nothing >to do with IPR's! We have all conceded that nobody knows how >the IPR debate will end. We are saying that, To Us, it really >doesnt matter. So leave the horse alone, the damn thing's dead! marginmike, to us, IPR really matters. And because nobody knows how it will end, and the result may swing this stock a lot, we'd better debate this particular issue. Among other important issues such as are there more buyers than sellers and who should get a life. Dave, thank you for very informative postings. - rajala

To: marginmike who wrote (16500)	10/15/1998 5:25:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Mike: No, I am not a shareholder of the Q. I am trying to enlighten the masses about IPR. Actually, I am not really arguing for or against the Q. We have all conceded that nobody knows how the IPR debate will end It appears that you have been enlightened (at least a little) by stating that one does not know how the debate will end. your stock picks arnt going to add to your bottom line! Mike, that isn't nice. It was similiar to Maurice's jab that I didn't know anything about IP Law since I didn't know that Jacobs' first name was Irwin (instead of Ira) and that I couldn't spell Motorola correctly. Good day for the Q (and the market, if I might add) dave