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: lkj who wrote (16911)	10/22/1998 2:47:00 AM
From: Asterisk	Respond to of 152472

Isn't it unusual for a company(let alone multiple companies in the same business) to announce to the world the amount of royalties they are paying? I would love some facts and some real testimonials from the companies paying these royalties to back up this story. As someone said earlier "if you can't win spin." Could that be what the Koreans are doing in hopes of getting lower royalties? I doubt it would be a first for a company to sling a little mud in order to get a lower royalty. Maybe an analog (or analogue for you british commonwealthers) would be Ericcsson?

To: lkj who wrote (16911)	10/22/1998 4:56:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

Thanks for that lkj. How come they whine about the cost of the cdmaOne component? That is the best part and about the cheapest. They don't moan about the cost of the plastic case. Or the DSP chips. Or the solder, wiring, resistors, screen, aerial and battery. Those bits are all components of the cost. Plus marketing, advertising, billing and so on. Maybe somebody should tell them to add up all the costs they incur in making the handsets, then add a bit for profit and do a good job of selling them. To say that a component of the handset stops them making profit is completely loopy. They aren't worried about the tyranny of the battery, or the dominance of the ubiquitous plastic housing. 5.75% seems excessively modest as a royalty. Especially given the growth rate of cdmaOne in Korea which proves just how superior the cdmaOne technology is and what a huge competitive advantage they have gained from it. It seems that they have been given a too cheap price. If cdmaOne was growing more slowly, one could argue that cdmaOne royalties are perhaps a bit high and should be trimmed. It makes sense that the creator of the advantage gain the main share of that advantage. This once again shows that they are being irrational. Given their stock market crash and economic problems, maybe they have lost mental balance - I know for me, just the threat of going broke makes me go wonky in the head, let alone the real thing. The royalty sums are going to add up to quite a lot of billions of $$$, so it seems that those people who say you can't make money from royalties are a bit ill-informed too. No wonder it is easy to make money in the stockmarket when so many people don't seem to have a clue what's going on. With the higher data rate in cdma2000, The Q! should aim at a HIGHER royalty rate for cdma2000 - say 7.314159% Not a low single figures sum. Given L M Ericsson's very unpleasant way of asking for a licence, they should be sold one at a premium. Maybe 10%. Mqurice Maurice@cdmacellular.co.nz $80 in a week!