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 : Ericsson overlook? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: P2V who wrote (2120)	10/15/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5390

To Marden Marshall: You wrote to Maurice but your point seems so wise to me that I wish to thank you. Yes, no one gains if either side pushes too far beyond a win win fair price - bad past history or no. Let us hope that a reasonable bargain is struck and we all win. Chaz PS Given your youthful experience you might find a recent post on the SI Qualcomm thread of interest. It is a study at Harvard by experts in how to arrive at a fair bargain. Since in the US even the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the President just finished a hard hard bargaining time and the US has a budget at last is a lesson that much is possible even in difficult circumstances. Hope for Ericy and the Q. :-) Best regards. Chaz

To: P2V who wrote (2120)	10/15/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5390

True enough Mardy, no good taking home some spinach to rot. Having spent a decade or so as a salesman, I agree with you about the need to come to agreements. But a market is not a single buyer and seller, but many of them. So QUALCOMM has already done lots of selling and further sales are diluting the opportunity of earlier licensees as there are only 5bn people to buy and the more new licensees there are, the more competition there is for earlier buyers of the technology and the less the benefit they get from having agreed to buy. So in fairness, QUALCOMM should perhaps say "that's enough now". Because they are selling the same spinach over and over and over again. By and large, I'd also sell to most anyone. But some people I'd rather let my spinach rot than let them have it. By feeding Hitler and his crowd, to take an extreme example, you'd feed destruction. I'd rather not sell. In more moderate cases, there are some people who are so unpleasant to deal with that you need to charge them a lot more for the spinach because they'll be complaining about it, looking for a minor fault, bringing litigation, needing a lot of effort to form an agreement and all that. Sometimes, you'd rather sell your spinach direct to the neighbours than to a wholesaler. There is no law that says you HAVE to sell to a wholesaler. Cutting out the middle man is a time-honoured tradition. Glad you enjoy the rants! I've always been pretty successful in negotiations, and honesty, fairness, respect etc are the way to go. In L M Ericsson's case, I'd agree that there seems to be strength to QUALCOMM's case. If they don't admit that if they know it to be true, then QUALCOMM should conclude that L M Ericsson really doesn't understand the value of what they are buying, so some more discussion is necessary until both agree on outcomes of possible court cases, market development and all the parameters. Tit for tat is also a time honoured negotiating approach. Stuff like that.. anyway, better go Maurice PS: Nearing the old people's club too! We had the first tv in Mangere [won it in a raffle]. Grew vegetables and all that jazz. Went to the markets. I've got more good old days than I can remember.