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 : Ericsson overlook? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2442)	12/18/1998 11:14:00 AM
From: Clean	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5390

The more I follow the ericy/qcom slugfest, the more confused I get. Of course, it's about money but 1. What is the difference between a patent and an IPR? 2. Is this a situation where, in the end, one will be right and one will be wrong? Are there no win-win situations? From an investment standpoint, I'm like Paul mentioned earlier. My porfolio has qcom, ericy and noka, but now it's heavy weighed in noka because of their success. Maybe I should just dump qcom and ericy and put in all in noka. regards.

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2442)	12/18/1998 3:40:00 PM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5390

" Taichi: I think it is about time that the truth be known concerning CDMA (in general) IPR." That statement assumes you know the truth of CDMA. With all due respect, I doubt it. I don't know the truth and no one does, as the courts have not ruled. We're both betting our separate monies in our separate ways. But if I'm right, ERICY is finito, dead, kaput. Locked into an obsolete technology (GSM) with every indication that China will fall apart with the death of the China-China-foreign business model, no license from QCOM for the successor technology, NOK.A kicking their butts in handsets... a long nuclear winter has set in for the Swedes, I think. Which is appropriate; given their habits of lying to their customers, their partners, various world bodies AND their history of bribery in order to win contracts.

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2442)	12/19/1998 10:38:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5390

Mika, to call QUALCOMM intransigent over their intellectual property is a bit weird. Imagine I bust into your house, make myself comfy in your armchair and help myself to your fridge. You would probably demand I leave. I would be dismayed, call in all my friends and family to enjoy my company and your goodies. You would whine like a 747! I would offer that we negotiate an arrangement. We have this half of the living room and you have that one. We eat the food and you supply it. We'll occupy most of the bedrooms and you have only one as a gesture towards you originally building the house. You'd probably suggest that that wasn't a reasonable arrangement and want to collect some rent. Well, what a greedy pig you are Mika! Who do you think you are, demanding all this for yourself? You can't stop all of us since you are only one - that is unfair and absurd. You can't stand in the way of a whole family and social arrangement. One selfish person. After a while, we'd start to feel quite comfy and start to put up a bit of new wallpaper and mow the lawn as we do like it nice. You'd be whining away and we'd point out that we have been building this place for ages. Why years ago we drove past it and laughed, telling our buddies what an ugly useless hovel it was and that was when we started thinking how it could be improved. So we really started building it way back then. ---anyway, you get the picture... 1....Not all property claims are created equal. 2....When the justice system arrives, they don't just flip a coin, although Dave the patent adviser seems to think it is a lottery as to who wins in court, though he now agrees that one or other might win. 3....Having many claims to the property does not make it yours. 4....Saying "Who the hell are they?" to the owners does not prove you own it. 5....The fact that some people pool their houses does not mean everyone has to indulge squatters. 6....A property owner is not "intransigent" because they demand the full control of their property. 7....Having many squatters in the same property does not create a valid claim to that property. Maurice