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: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19271)	12/8/1998 9:02:00 AM
From: w2j2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Definite anti-Qualcomm spin.

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19271)	12/8/1998 9:18:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 152472

Mika: Thanks for this informative post. Funny, reading between the lines, I didn't find the ITU position to be all that negative for Qualcomm. My biased North American perspective is as follows: the ITU understands that QC's IPR is essential to the proposed W-CDMA standard and that Qualcomm is in a position to block Ericsson's direct sequence spread spectrum strategy if an accommodation cannot be reached. Ericsson's believes that it holds sufficient IPR to force QC to horse-trade on 3G, but this position does NOT extend to IS-95C/HDR. I believe that this impasse benefits Qualcomm substantially. Keep in mind that it was Ericsson that perceived the need to move to a CDMA-based air interface as a competitive response to IS-95 and to facilitate deployment of 3G-type wireless services. One can reasonably presume that Ericsson would not have pursued a CDMA-based solution were it able to achieve similar performance out of its core and proven TDMA-based technologies. As I have noted before, every CDMA system in the world today represents marketshare lost by TDMA-based GSM. The future as I see it is therefore pretty black and white. ERICY MUST compromise on the convergence issue because it cannot allow the North Americans to pursue an IS-95 based strategy that ultimately displaces TDMA-based technologies as the demand for high data rate and 3G services expands next decade. Ericsson will push for the best deal that it can get, and Qualcomm cannot overplay its hand, but given Ericsson's annunciated strategy, not to mention its need to service customers like DoCoMo, compromise is inevitable. Imagine, if you will, how frustrated DoCoMo must be...DDI/IDO is up and running with IS-95 style CDMA and could deploy high data rate services by 2000-2001. As it stands now, DoCoMo could find itself without a 3G response, which ultimately would impair its current strong market position. This, of course, is not an acceptable outcome for DoCoMo. Imagine, if you will, the impact on Ericsson's strategy were DoCoMo to abandon its support for W-CDMA and deploy IS-95. Such a sea change could materially and permanently alter the balance of power between QC and ERICY and substantively impact the terms of whatever agreement is finally reached between the two concerns. Best regards, Gregg

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19271)	12/9/1998 9:50:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question but I just realized something, WHO CARES. Sorry to be so blunt but in all reality both standards (GSM and IS-95) and their variants were local standards that were adopted by the global community. The ITU is a larger standards setting body true but even if they decide to go with TDMA big deal. There will always be other standard setting bodies that will be willing to listen to CDMA proposals, and as long as there is a published standard somewhere it is sellable. There are implications that the standard will not be as widely visible or that it won't come from a body that has the clout that the ITU has. But all in all how many out there can name the places that IS-95 and JSTD-008 came from? The only thing that changes this argument is if the ITU has blocking power for the entire world (i.e. if they don't certify it you can't use it), but since the Americas and everyone else have different frequency allocations in the 1900/1800Mhz band I really don't think that is true. Am I missing something?