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: tero kuittinen who wrote (19993)	12/18/1998 12:13:00 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

I think the commentators already have stakes in existing technology. In addition, they have a hard time believing that a small, upstart can enter what they see as an entrenched industry. And finally, they have a prejudice against companies which depend on IPR, perhaps due to Mfst.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19993)	12/18/1998 12:18:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: I could defend my position by saying that many of these same Americans are buying Amazon stock at an infinite multiple to hypothetical earnings. But this issue is too important to be glib. Simply put, when a big company says that a small company is lying, people tend to believe the big company and doubt the small company. This problem is exacerbated by Qualcomm management's infuriating proclivity for "turning the other cheek." Irwin Jacobs does not believe that the news media can, or will, bring about convergence. Standards do not get promulgated by democratic concensus, nor would Ericsson capitulate due to a failing PR effort. PR can influence stock price; it CAN make Qualcomm vulnerable to an abusive acquirer, but it CANNOT change the legal validity of its patents. If, as I believe, Qualcomm's IPR is an essential part of W-CDMA, Ericsson simply cannot screw Qualcomm without Qualcomm's cooperation. I believe that Irwin's approach is to avoid public warfare and remain focused on substantive negotiations. There are risks to this approach, which I believe he understands, but he has made a business judgment and I have too much respect for him to argue the point. Your comment about the promulgation of a superior standard is, with all due respect, ironic to the point of hillarity. If Ericsson's W-CDMA standard relies on QC's IPR as I believe, then your position is analogous to IBM copying Microsoft Windows, tweaking it slightly, slapping on a new label, and then bragging to the world about its technological innovation. To put it simply, your position is not substantiated by the fact-base of the dispute. As for CDMA being a mild let down....PLEASE. If CDMA is such a disappointment, why are we teetering on the verge of an international trade dispute over Ericsson's desire to deploy the same? Once again, the obvious circumstances do not support your position. Happy holidays.. Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19993)	12/18/1998 12:39:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

Tero - Why are American experts siding against an American company if Qualcomm's position is really impregnable? First, I'm not sure what the nationality of the expert has to do with it. Physics is not a patriot. Second, and more importantly, the answer to the question of 'why do experts (journalists and technologists) side against Qualcomm?' is the same as the answer to the question 'why did experts say CDMAOne would never work.'? A lot of experts were (and are) easily manipulated, and Ericsson is nothing if not a good manipulator of the truth (as you yourself have said on the Nokia thread). As Gregg points out, this is the reason Frezza is remembered by Qualcomm. It shows how ignorant many 'experts' are, and how good Ericsson is at what it does best (and that isn't technology). Clark PS In regard to The way W-CDMA alliance has been able to cobble together global momentum is a testament to their shrewd political instincts, both Qualcomm and Ericsson should both remember the aphorism 'In a battle between physics and politicians, physics always wins eventually'. Clark

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19993)	12/18/1998 12:41:00 PM
From: Bux	Respond to of 152472

"Why are American experts siding against an American company if Qualcomm's position is really impregnable?" Tero, we live in a global economy with multi-national companies. I guess American experts are not as nationalistic as most of the European nations. "Apparently Wall Street is also siding with W-CDMA, judging from stock price movements that are triggered by W-CDMA-related news." When the smoke clears let's see who is standing on which side. "I doubt that they realized how hard it would be to incorporate data functions like short messaging and e-mail into CDMA phones." No more difficult than for TDMA or any other digital technology. "So to some extent, CDMA has been a mild let-down." You must be baffled and angry that your idols have decided to use such a disappointing technology for the most advanced wireless communication ever proposed on the face of the earth. Tero, your arguments are based on circumstantial evidence, appearances, innuendo and very little substance. Either QCOM has blocking IPR or they don't. All the evidence that I have seen, with the exception of Ickies statements, indicate they do. Time will tell.