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 (20498)	12/29/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 152472

Tero, My point in Frezza Forum was that CDMA will not perform as well as hyped, that GSM and TDMA will do better in USA than anticipated. Remember that at that point the consensus opinion in this thread was that IS-95 was going to "demolish" GSM? Remember the time when the global total domination of IS-95 was not only imminent but also inevitable? My 1996 opinions turned out to be close enough to GSM? You've made this point repeatedly in the past. IS95 has in fact demolished GSM. It has proven that CDMA, flavor it how you will, works, and will outdo GSM. As a result,vendors and carriers around the world are fighting over exactly what specs will be included in a CDMA future.I understand the "reasoning" behind claiming a GSM victory, but a bittersweet victory it is.....DMG

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20498)	12/29/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: It's getting pretty smelly around here...you probably should harness that male bovine of yours before he poops all over the place. Please show me where I said that IS-95 was going to "demolish" GSM. My argument then was the same as my argument now: TDMA-based GSM is built around an obsolete air interface. The correctness of this observation, and GSM's inherent weakness, is being borne out by the push for W-CDMA. Meanwhile, you are pretty quick to dismiss the LIES that Ericsson told its customers in the interest of protecting its GSM investment. Let's see. "Hi Mr. Customer...no you don't want that CDMA stuff 'cause it doesn't/won't/can't work (and if it does pan out, we'll claim to have invented it). Please buy our TDMA-based product, even though we are trying real hard to make this CDMA stuff that doesn't/won't/can't work. Please be prepared to write us new checks to upgrade if CDMA which doesn't/won't/can't work, in fact does. P.S. we're telling the truth now!!!" Tero...just once...please...demonstrate some intellectual honesty and in precise terms explain how W-CDMA is technically different from IS-95. Please delve into the nuances of power control, soft hand-off and rake receivers so we can all see how Ericsson invented something different as opposed to attaching a new name to the same fundamental concepts. Are you naive or simply being deceptive? Simply tweaking a specificaion and calling it W-CDMA rather than IS-95 doesn't change the fundamental technological principles...or do things really work that way in delusional-land? Please...please...Tero...make me look stupid...prove to the world I am an idiot...explain to us in a factually verifiable fashion, the precise differences in W-CDMA and IS-95. Please avoid such global generalities as "W-CDMA has been designed to provide an easy upgrade for GSM while cdma2000 has not." Please demonstrate how the IPR that exists in the Nokia and Orbitel licenses fails to appear in W-CDMA's fundamental design. Do so and I will concede defeat...maybe even sell my Qualcomm stock. How's that for an incentive? Good luck! Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20498)	12/29/1998 11:35:00 AM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 152472

Please explain the difference in the air-interface of WCDMA and CDMA2000? Tero if you are going to throw arround generalizations on standards please explain the differences. As far as I know besides the chip rate(which is changing)there are very few differences. Since you know so much about all the Nokia research please educate me on how WCDMA is unlike CDMA2000. I would also like to know why DOMOCO stated there are 1500 patents for CDMA2000 that are for WCDMA. I think you are being misled by your sources at Ericy and NOKIA.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20498)	12/29/1998 11:49:00 AM
From: mmeggs	Respond to of 152472

Given all you have said about the years of research "spanning decades" and the various partnerships and cooperation on W-CDMA, explain the recent change in chip rate. Not to overstate what seems patently obvious to me, but why is this pristine standard so independently developed from cdma, with so many R&D dollars dumped into it, the superior upgrade from GSM, the Best Thing Since Night Baseball, the One the Only, the Cat's Meow, so arbitrarily and suddenly changed? Good grief, if they spent as much time and money as you say they have, ain't it a little late to say "Oops."? mmeggs P.S. And again, please, no fluffy generalizations about W-CDMA being "superior" or "independent". Deal with the premises.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20498)	12/29/1998 12:36:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero - You can be sure that if Qualcomm ever starts making W-CDMA equipment they have to pay licensing fees to Nokia. W-CDMA networks are being built right now in Italy, China, England, Germany, etc. Show me where in the Qualcomm patents it says 'good for narrowband only' or 'good for IS-95 only'? It doesn't. While I have not checked Nokia's patent position in regards to key CDMA patents, I have checked Ericsson's, and for the areas I've checked (soft handoff and power control both of which are essential to CDMA mobile cell systems) its pretty clear that Ericsson is in deep doo-doo. It may be true that Nokia, or even the hated Ericsson<g>, has some patents for W-CDMA, but I imagine that they are for much less essential pieces. Thus Ericsson's claim that Qualcomm is trying to get more patent royalties is actually a fair statement of their own position. This is a good business tactic if you can get away with it by forcing the adoption of your standard. The problem is that Qualcomm can bypass W-CDMA patents (should any exist), but the inverse is not true. It's the difference between key and trivial. But the current GSM operators are all preparing to upgrade to W-CDMA. They show no interest in cdma2000. What was the noise all of the service providers were making recently about convergence? Certainly it doesn't qualify as "no interest". Clark PS FWIW - I recently went back through the Frezza forum, and I'll admit that I don't remember you claiming that CDMA was junk (unlike Frezza and some others). You just claimed that it would be steam-rollered by GSM and its momentum. That hasn't exactly happened, but neither has CDMA yet conquered GSM (although that looks like it will happen soon enough - 3 years to faster adds for CDMA than GSM?).