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 (20505)	12/29/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: JScurci	Respond to of 152472

Tero, Every time yor're asked to respond with facts, you regress to your stale regurgitation of handset styles and talk time. That's not only intellectually dishonest, it's pathetic. please spare us, John

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20505)	12/29/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: Keith Feral	Respond to of 152472

Tero: Which Q phone is creating negative buzz - the cellular or PCS model? Do the customers still get the remaining 1 hour and 55 minutes of talk time? In regards to SIM cards, I'd rather take my cell phone with me than look around for an un-used phone. I'm not going to go up to some guy on the street and ask him if I can stick my SIM card in his slot. Can you imagine the strange looks? Maybe guys like simin their slot in Sweden, who knows? In regards to power control - the IS 95B upgrades will increase roaming time to 150 hours. Your main argument for superior features is running out of time. The clock is ticking.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20505)	12/29/1998 12:27:00 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

If Ericy working so long and hard on W-CDMA, why is its proposal to ETSI so blank on many of the questions--unlike Qcom proposal. Looks far more like it's a last-minute response. If TDMA were so great, why does Ericy's W-CDMA proposal read like Qualcomm's PR for cdmaOne from several years ago, i.e., like an advertisement for cdma. You responded with non-response, switched issues. If you are to be really believed, deal with one issue at a time.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20505)	12/29/1998 12:29:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: Let me be crystal clear: YOUR POST WAS TOTALLY NON-RESPONSIVE. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE SUBSTITUTED INNUENDO, HYPERBOLE AND CREATIVE VERBIAGE FOR A SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE. Since I have a Q800 sitting on my desk, I can respond to your first comment with a simple "bull crap." With the slim-line battery, in ANALOG mode, standby-times do degrade...but this is an apples-to-oranges comparison versus digital mode. I charged my Q800 over the weekend, and with the same slim-line battery noted above, the phone has been on since 7:15am Monday morning, I have logged forty-two minutes of talk time and there are still three out of four "bars" on the battery LCD. That...in case you did not recognize it...is a fact-based response to a specific allegation. You do not need to be an engineer to understand that GSM's TDMA air interface is obsolete...you only need to objectively analyze Ericsson's behavior. Why would Ericsson, Nokia, DoCoMo et al be doing W-CDMA in the first place if TDMA was adequate? I remember you saying over-and-over-and-over-and...that IS-95 would be too late to market; that it would cost too much to manufacture the equipment; that GSM phones were too far ahead. What a crock...Nokia's CDMA phone best resembles the bricks in my house's foundation...and both Ericsson and Nokia are peddling toward W-CDMA as fast as they can. What happens to your tiny, clever little GSM phones when they go W-CDMA? Won't Ericsson and Nokia be subject to the same manufacturing cost and learning curve issues that you attributed to Qualcomm's IS-95? Why is Nokia looking to outsource its CDMA ASIC if its technology is so advanced? Try Tero...please try...I know you can do it...try really hard for a fact-based response. You said: "We will see whether Nokia and Ericsson "tweaked" IS-95 (which didn't even exist when these companies started their W-CDMA R&D effort) or created a new standard that may incorporate some elements that Qcom can claim to have IPR for. Like I said, I'm not an engineer. But I know engineers who think that QCOM's case is shaky." Oh boy am I impressed!! My mother thinks that Bill Clinton is a nice man and Monica Lewinsky is a sleezy tramp. Guess the Senate should opt for censure over impeachment. So, you are not an engineer; you have no idea whether W-CDMA is simply a tweaked version of IS-95 and you know some people, who for all we know could be civil engineers, who claim that QC's case is shaky. Well, well...quite the credible background to substantiate your emphatic aphorisms. Qualcomm must be in real trouble. Tero...I have repeated cited sources in both the U.S. and European wireless equipment sector that affirm QC's IPR position. The Lucent/Phillips JV executed a W-CDMA license with Qualcomm, presumably after examining the IPR; the ITU has failed to approve a 3G standard due to the IPR impasse and DoCoMo has offered to modify its position...all because Qualcomm's IPR position is shaky??? Of course, Irwin Jacobs is fighting for convergence, and refusing to license the company's IPR, because....he doesn't really have any patents??? Heck...if Irwin can stop mighty Ericsson dead in its tracks and prompt DoCoMo to modify the standard...all without any valid IPR...why don't all of us on this thread simply write a nasty letter to the ITU and ETSI and refuse to license OUR patents. I mean, I know something about CDMA, and that probably counts for something, so I should demand that Ericsson and DoCoMo converge on G-CDMA!! Alice, your mushroom is ready..... Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20505)	12/29/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: Quincy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, If GSM/TDMA is as good as you just claimed it to be, then why are providers going dual-band? Was it fun for them? Free? Or were they unable to get a call through? We don't send Email to phones in the US. We send voicemail. Much faster to send and easier for people to figure out how to receive.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20505)	12/29/1998 5:57:00 PM
From: JMD	Respond to of 152472

tero my man, now you've really committed the fatal faux pas, the smoking gun is at hand and I'm just the dude to pull the trigger. I, Surfer Mike, have single-handedly used CDMA to send and receive messages. It works and works now. Armed only with my user manual, a Mighty Q 2700, and a little help from Sprint, I blast 100 character messages at me daily. Gotta tell you it's better than self-abuse. Please recant your statement that CDMA phones can't send short messages, or I'm gonna write whoever it is you write when a grave injustice has been done. [note to thread allies--who the hell is it?] Surfer Mike

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20505)	12/29/1998 8:07:00 PM
From: limtex	Respond to of 152472

Tero - ERICY and NOK have other massive income sources! Well maybe so but at what margins and at what cost. W-CDMA would give them gravy and lots of it so they could continue their lifestyle. But the other revenues might only afford them a meagre living. I wonder what their business plans would look like if the Q were to win? I mean it must have been considered so just what would the future hold for them? For a more detailed analysis see Clarks post:- Message 7014650 Regards, L

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20505)	1/2/1999 7:04:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 152472

Tero, We will see whether Nokia and Ericsson "tweaked" IS-95 (which didn't even exist when these companies started their W-CDMA R&D effort) or created a new standard that may incorporate some elements that Qcom can claim to have IPR for. What's taking so long? How much trust should the operators put in ERICY and Nokia if they put 7-9 years in the lab with nothing to show for it? After 7-9 years of this alleged effort they came up with something that suspiciously looks like what QCOM has been selling for 3 years. What a coincidence! Joe