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: stealthy who wrote (17102)	10/24/1998 11:35:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

All DO CO MO-W-CDMA: eet.com

To: stealthy who wrote (17102)	10/24/1998 4:19:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

A few 'snips'. First: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Qualcomm's Louis Lapin, senior vice president and proprietary rights counsel, said Ericsson's dismissal of claims on three CDMA/IS-95 patents was an admission that "Ericsson wrongfully and falsely claimed essential patents." "That Ericsson waited more than two years to dismiss these meritless claims sheds light on its motives," Lapin said. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ed: Another example of the crooked charlatans at L M Ericsson. Then more obfuscation, lies, misconceptions, mistakes or ignorance by L M Ericsson and cronies about chip rates: ------------------------------------------------------------------ "One of the last remaining differences between W-CDMA and cdma2000 is the chip rate," said LaForge. "We originally stated that the ETSI proposed chip rate of 4.096 mcps would not work when attempting to implement the system in a 5MHz block of spectrum. It is now recognised that, indeed, this is true. ARIB has studied the chip rate issue and has concluded that the choice of this parameter value has no bearing on overall performance. Agreeing on a common chip rate parameter does not reduce performance, but it does create economies of scale. Harmonizing chip rates sounds like an obvious solution, but if you want harmonization to fail for competitive reasons, you fight it. You attack it by incorrectly claiming that it would have a 'significant perfomance impact'. This is the situation that we have for 3G. There appears to be no technical rationale for not achieving consensus, unless it is in your interest to destabilise the harmonization efforts." ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ed: And why L M Ericsson and cronies are whining: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ericsson's president and CEO, Sven-Christer Nilsson, has stated publically [sic - there are a lot of sics needed in the article!] that he hopes his company can reach an amicable solution for both the standards and the IPR issue. But would it pay well over $10 royalties for each handset sold, and an infrastructure royalty which could amount to between 5 and 10% of gross revenues? Do the maths. This amounts to a phenomenal amount of money. This followed an earlier message to New York analysts that: "competition should not be stopped by someone not willing to make patents available on fair and equal terms. We cannot accept unreasonable and unequal terms and we will fight them. They have no place in the new telecoms world." However, a recent Ericsson press release stated that: "despite thorough investigation, Ericsson has found no reason to believe that ETSI's present W-CDMA standard would infringe upon any valid IPR's (sic) [Ed: that's their 'sic' not mine!] claimed by Qualcomm." Of course, this could merely be a further act of politicking, or it could be an indication that Ericsson is prepared to ignore Qualcomm's assertions. By contrast, the rest of the mobile industry has been keeping remarkably quiet, but behind closed doors resentment is brewing. There is a feeling that this stalemate is harmful to the industry. The debate is holding up the progress of standards and may further extend costs into the CDMA industry. Their is an unspoken belief by the rest of the industry that no one company should be allowed the right to dictate the evolution of a global standard. Although they won't publically admit it, many in the US and non-US wireless industry would love to get out from under Qualcomm's IPRs, and they see 3G as a way of doing this. Qualcomm can see this, and is therefore doing everything it can to prevent this from occuring. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed: So they are saying because The Q! has invented something everybody wants and Q! is going to make a phenomenal amount of money, The Q! should simply be stomped on and their property stolen. Looks like a GSM Nazi gang to me. Full of propaganda, conspiracy, bullying, theft, political power, extorqueration and sacrifice of individuals and property rights in favour of the great collective and the five year plan, 'The Committee' and their 'Standards'. Stealthy, yes, I really think The Q! is a logical buy. It would be hostile - not agreed at all. Even if the IPR couldn't be snaffled by the incoming owner, it might still be worth it to ERICY. Can The Q! really just give away our IPR like that? Seems to me it reduces our value and is a big barrier to a takeover, vesting control of the company in Irwin and Co rather than the shareholders. I suppose shareholders could vote to cancel that takeover provision. Bit of a nasty poison pill. I'd say for $150 per share, L M Ericsson could buy The Q! Maybe less. But if the 'phenomenal' income predicted comes to pass, $150 is going to look like a joke. L M Ericsson won't want to wait until they get their vexatious patent litigation biffed out of court at which time their VapourWear will be plain for all to see! Mqurice