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 (22528)	2/5/1999 11:02:00 AM
From: CDMQ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

helsinginsanomat.com No DNS entry, Could you furnish more information? Thanx

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (22528)	2/5/1999 11:34:00 AM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero - This is the fundamental point you are either deliberately ignoring or do not understand. No one is trying to claim that ERICY, MOT, et al have not WORKED on W-CDMA, but rather that they are simply trying to expand/tweak/improve on the existing CDMA concepts patented by Qualcomm. There is virtually no difference between the the competing 3g standards, and those differences that exist are there principally to deny backwards compatibility to cdmaOne. There is no proven performance advantage to W-CDMA and in fact it may be less efficient than cdma-2000. This is the point you have NEVER clashed with, and is the lynchpin to QCOM's position. Until you are able to discuss the substantive differences between the competing systems, your argument that "Ericsson has been working on it since the mid-90's" holds no water. What, specifically, did they invent? Soft handoff? Power control? What? Then, to complete your argument, you need to point out how this in any way shape or form affects Qualcomm's position. Does Qualcomm need these innovations? Do these inventions bypass Qualcomm IPR? What? Regards, mmeggs