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: Gregg Powers who wrote (16674)	10/16/1998 7:35:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 152472

To Gregg: Many thanks for this and your previous post. I for one continue to be amazed and grateful that you take the time and make the effort to give us the benefit of your knowledge and experience. I learn every time you post. Of course for me that is relatively easy since I start from a pretty low knowledge base - particularly re technology. But even I can follow your reasoning on the many facets of the Q's situation you cover. :-) Would seem like a few of the self professed "experts" here could learn a bit at least - but some seem impervious. Thank you again. Chaz

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16674)	10/16/1998 7:36:00 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 152472

Gregg: I find it extremely interesting. If I was in Ericy shoes, I would never make a comment like that "on the record". That type of statement makes Ericsson look extremely petty and spitefull. Anyways, about your second argument, I have commented that Ericy says that they have the necessary IPR. For the record, the Q has stated the same. Furthermore, I have commented that, IMO, the Q is seeking awfully broad protection for their patents and questioned whether those patents (and later on, their earlier ones) were enabling for high bandwidth applications. I have also stated on the record that I felt IP wasn't the issue, but implementation is. W-CDMA can always happen. As was stated earlier, a patent is just a piece of paper, albeit a piece of paper that laws protect. Companies have willfully infringed on patents. Remember I told you that this debate would not end up in court because ERICY knows that it would lose? Remember that I told you that ERICY would ultimately settle and figure out some clever way to spin the outcome? I gave many scenarios, one of court and I recall that you jumped all over me about settling, remember? Don't be too quick to claim victory here, Gregg. We can agree that those statements by Ericsson don't help out their position much. I would almost classify those statements as an implied admission. dave

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16674)	10/16/1998 8:54:00 PM
From: w2j2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

This statement moves Ericsson one step closer to giving in to Dr. J! wj

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16674)	10/16/1998 9:44:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

To all - O.T. -- "gold," "platinum" credit cards. Would you believe that in today's mail we received an invitation to apply for a "Titanium" Mastercard. (I am not making this up). Although I did not waste my time reading all of their verbiage, I thought up something silly : "The new Titanium card -- the only credit card that you can throw into an operating Boeing 747 jet turbine and have the card come out the other end okay." Jon.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16674)	10/17/1998 9:25:00 AM
From: Harvey Rosenkrantz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Taking it one step further. It is my understanding that the votes in ETSI are weighted by annual sales within Europe (or some similar measure of economic power). Since Ericy is a dominant player within Europe, ETSI could not possibly change the standard without their acquiescence. This may be a major back door concession.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16674)	10/17/1998 6:33:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, It is weird that ERICY is clearly conceding the validity and necessity of Q patents, and it does look like they're giving themselves an out, but I understood their threat to mean that they won't license any technology to QCOM period, that they weren't actually referring to WCDMA, that if Q needs any ERICY IPR for CDMA 2000 or anything else they won't receive it. So then the question would be is Q using any ERICY patents in IS95(abc), and does it plan to use any in the future.Am I misinterpreting their threat? Thanks...Dave MG

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16674)	10/17/1998 9:12:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Message 6054068 Speak of the devil. George Gilder thinks QUALCOMM's pdQ with a burst rate of 2 Megabit modem won't be all bad in IP! He said: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the fascinating bandwidth debate in this thread. But I sense a manic depressive oscillation between a belief that bandwidth will be too abundant and cheap (like transistors?) and a belief that it will be effectively scarce because of last mile bottlenecks and regulatory snarls (like DSL). I think the key is growth in Internet traffic at about 10 fold a year, 1000fold every three years, and a million fold, perhaps, by 2005. Much of the first millionfold rise (from gigabytes per month to petabytes) came on 28.8 modems and crowded T-1 lines. With WDM on land and sea (check out GlobalCrossing for a coming bandwidth colossus), with millions of cable modems from Broadcom and customers, and with Qualcom pdQ phones bearing 2 megabit burst modems in two years (attach your notebook and you have a T1 courtesy of Sprint PCS in Central Park or Park City) and with the telcos facing devastating competition in T1s at last, the technology will keep apace on supply and demand curves three times the Moore's Law rate. At times, supply will surge ahead and prices will plummet, at which point demand will explode. It will be a roller coaster for sure, but that's why we get the big bucks. Right? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes Dave[clone3], The Q's patents also cover applications in IP, with dirty great big wave functions. Orthogonal ones at that. The pdQ is already shaping up to being a hot product. I hope the plastic doesn't melt, the buttons are joined to the wiring, the connectors are connected, the belt clip isn't the only thing that stays on your belt and the bubblegum holds the chicken wire aerial in position. Mqurice