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 (18373)	11/16/1998 10:54:00 AM
From: Mika Kukkanen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg: Where is the reference to needing Qcom's IPR? There is not! We all have our theories, but there was no reference that Ericsson needing Qcom IPR (unless of course they enter the IS-95 world). It is fact that Qualcomm have stated that they will not license their IPR for anything but a converged (let's say cdma2000 centric) CDMA 3G system. Ericsson have stated they do not need Qcom IPR, but the rather b(B)old statement that Qcom have issued implies "ransom". In my history of telecom's this is unprecedented...the "contentious" point you were looking for? In reality Ericy might need it, to make things easier, but then Qcom might need Ericy IPR. So this maybe an issue of cross licensing? Regards, Mika

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (18373)	11/16/1998 1:12:00 PM
From: Raymond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg! You are asking the Nokia ERICY camp "a straightforward question, for the 1,093rd time"."please explain to me how it is possible to "blackmail" somebody by refusing to license them something that they do not need".I think you know exactly what the problem is.Even if ERICY doesn't agree that QCOM:s patents are valid nobody can be sure before it's goes to court.If QCOM is saying to the world that they have essential IPR:s relating to WCDMA.Then I think it's very understandable if the operators will just sit down and wait until the legal stuff has cleared. Could I ask you a question.If the European way of setting a standard via ETSI and then implementing it around Europe is wrong and against marketprinciples.How can then QCOM demand that a single standard should be used around the whole world be good.Why isn't it better that the different standards can compete and let the best standard win. Pls don't come with that QCOM had no say in ETSI.They had the same chances as every other company to come up with a proposal for UMTS.The interesting thing was that companies like Motorola,Nortel,Lucent(partly),Sony supported the TDD proposal for UMTS.So the big CDMA vendors was against a CDMA solution for Europe.When they now speaks of convergence it sounds really hollow. I am not sure I am correct on this one but I think even QCOM was for the TDD proposal. There is a lot of talk here about the political influence Ericsson has and that's was the reason why they won in ETSI.I can list some companies supporting the TDD standard.Siemens,Alcatel,Nortel,Lucent Motorola,Italtel.That's the big equipment vendors of the major European countries.The American companies owns big European companies like Matra(Nortel).So the major vendors of France,Germany,Italy was for another proposal.Against them stood Nokia and Ericsson.The nordic governemnts are not at all like the French and the Italians.If you ask the Swedish communicationminister what he thinks of the 3G debate I doubt that he has even heard of it so don't come with that Nokia and Ericsson has heavy political backing.Finland and Sweden has one of the most liberal tradepolicies in the world.After joining the EU some of this tradepolicies has had to change for the worse but they are not activly supporting their companies in the same way as for example France does.The reason why they won in ETSI was that they had worked hardest with the operators to convince them that they have a superior standard.If we take which companies that came out early and supported WCDMA we have Mannesman and Europolitan.By the way both of them has Airtouch as a major shareholder. Does anyone has a theory why the American CDMA vendors was for the TDD proposal which is not CDMA.Was it because they thought it was a better standard? Or was it that they thought the WCDMA standard was so good that it was a threat to their investment in IS-95? Another question is why didn't they put forward the IS-95/2000 proposal in ETSI.I think it's really bad moral.After the loss of the TDD proposal in the first vote a facesaving compromise was reached which all voted for in ETSI.After all that QCOM come back and say that they want another standard for UMTS.I understand that Lucent and the rest are really quiet during all this.They are probably embarrassed. Another question. techweb.com "he only thing I can say is, if you asked me three months ago, the answer would have been there was no movement whatsoever, now there is movement and progress," toward a reconciliation, Jacobs reported, based in part on a meeting earlier this month in North Carolina. "There's no major agreement, but there has definitely been progress. Exactly how or whether it will work out, I don't know." This is the first time I have read anything pointing to that some agreement could be coming.Has anyone else any more info?.Does this mean that the trial between ERICY and QCOM can be cancelled? /R