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 (18377)	11/16/1998 11:36:00 AM
From: Mika Kukkanen	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, the differences are in interpretation...that is all. To quote: "QC has refused to license its IPR according to what Ericsson deems to be international norms." It is also deemed to be the norm by other an Ericsson and adhered to by all companies (Lu, MOT et al). Follow on quote: "It follows that for QC to extort blackmail there must be a hostage...what do you infer this hostage to be?" (or even "who?")And here is where the difference lies, if you truly believe that this really what "follows". Is it logical? I stated that they ARE holding the industry to ransom, as Qcom are trying to affect an outcome of the ITU by doing so (as it will delay the standardization process to prove this). Hence, the industry is a hostage. We all make presumptions, but that is exactly what they are. As I stated, it may well be a case of cross-licensing, but until then we will have to wait and see. Otherwise take note of the nuance of my paragraph above. best regards, Mika

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (18377)	11/16/1998 1:07:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, the reason you always have problem understanding Tero is because you two don't speak the same language. I have translated his recent post just for your benefit. Message 6429958 Here is a better version: Quincy, no matta' how biased ya' dink dat WSJ is, de data dey quote gots'ta be valid. Acco'din' t'de article, de new subscribers uh Airtouch dropped fum nearly 300 000 t'200 000, GTE saw some drop fum 140 000 t'70 000, Ameritech fum 100 000 t'50 000, SBC plunged fum 120 000 t'60 000, etc. Co' got d' beat! "It appears dat de regional Bells is gettin' hurt da damn most" says some Credit Suisse analyst in de piece. Compare dis t'AT%T's 74% growd in new subscribers. And BTW, we's rapin' about da damn dird quarta' here. A baaaad sprin' duzn't help much when de crucial 4Q approaches. "Durin' de past few monds, Baby Bells gots seen deir growd in new subscribers slow substantially" be de gist uh de article. As far as ah' know, all but two Baby Bells chose CDMA. So's it be not some stretch t'assume dat da damn recent Baby Bell problems reflect de problems uh regional CDMA opuh'to's. You's keep referrin' t'old data on CDMA growd, while da damn precipitous drop in new subscribers gots only surfaced in de last couple uh monds. Lack uh evidence t'suppo't mah' conclusions? Hardly. Slap mah fro! Dere be published data about 158% growd in new No'd American GSM subscribers in de 3Q - and dere is published data about majo' problems in non-Sprint regional CDMA opuh'to's. Meanwhile, it seems dat AT&T's OneRate honky code gots been some majo' success. ah' dig it dat different sucka's may eyeball de new data in different ways. But dere's no reason fo' sucka'al attacks. You's say I'm brin'in' nodin' t'de conversashun. If dese numbers is not newswo'dy is you sayin' dat everyone here knows dat GSM subscriba' base grew by 150% durin' autumn while half some dozen CDMA opuh'to's posted 50% declines? Is dis real common knowledge when even Gregg refuses t'recon' it? Or is we now at da damn stage where even numerical info'mashun published in WSJ be automatically dismissed if it duz not fit de CDMA-centric wo'ldview? Tero rinkworks.com