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: DaveMG who wrote (22749)	2/9/1999 1:02:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

To DaveMG: Congratulations and thanks on careful, detailed company by company analysis of why all the 3rd gen is complex and difficult to predict. Now you have cleared that up :-), as best anyone could right now IMO, agree that the focus now should be more on clarifying the effect of the Q's product introductions and announcements. We can learn a bit more there probably. Best. Chaz

To: DaveMG who wrote (22749)	2/9/1999 1:27:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

>I'm still not sure I understand why Q would be hurt by a multiple standard environment, assuming Q does indeed hold essential IPR in any CDMA proposal, especially if that's what the operators want.I suppose they'd suffer a PR defeat which would be bad for moral. But how different is WCDMA? Couldn't Q sell chips and phones into that mkt too? And what if CDMA2000 is the 'better" network?< Multiple standards would not "hurt" Qualcomm. Presently, the Q has no access to GSM markets so actually, multiple standards (W-CDMA and CDMA2000) would be better than the current situation since they would receive royalties from W-CDMA and if they choose, could manufacture W-CDMA equipment. But why should the Q consider this? Irwin has already said he will not license Q's patents for multiple standards. I feel like a dead horse is being flogged. Has he lied or mislead investors before? I can't recall anything. So, it looks like it is a question on whether the various standards bodies have any real authority or not. With the U.S. ready to defend open markets as if it is the only national religion, I think the standards bodies look like little weenies. They can decide whatever they want, but if that decision closes markets to U.S. technology there could be big trouble. And as long as foreign markets remain open to U.S. technology I think we all know who will win. Even if Q refuses to license their IPR for a competing standard. That would mean CDMA2000 will be competing with the best solution that can be cobbled together using TDMA. Is there reliable evidence that Ericsson IRP is required for CDMA2000? What is this IPR and how important is it for network efficiency? Qualcomm has already indicated they can do High Data Rate (HDR)CDMA without Ericssons IPR. If Q's HDR went head to head with the best TDMA based solution, who do you think would win. TDMA does not offer the network flexibility of CDMA and there is no reason to think it will in the future. Who needs higher data rates than HDR provides? Certainly not the smart soda machines, smart cars, etc. The only thing that needs more than HDR can offer is wireless full motion video. Actually I believe that HDR can achieve even that! The whole 3G situation is a bluff to get lower license rates and perhaps multiple standards so the GSM crowd can gain an advantage. CDMA has been very profitable so far without GSM markets. Perhaps if Ericsson and others don't come to Qualcomms terms, they would be better off to continue on the path they have paved. What will AT&T do if they find themselves competing head-head with CDMA networks here in the U.S? The growth potential in Canada, U.S., Mexico, Central and South America, N.Z. Aus, etc. is mind-boggling for CDMA and Qualcomm with or without convergence. In other words, a bluff is only effective if the buffer has leverage. Do they?

To: DaveMG who wrote (22749)	2/9/1999 2:02:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Old Frezza Forum For those who want to hunt down the prognostications of Tero and others as to how bad IS-95 is and how maybe with Chicken Wire and Bubble Gum they might cobble together some semi-working system which will collapse under load. networkcomputing.com Jim [Frost] I agree, Q!Modem is going to be big thanks to being such a small and universally useful way of sending thoughts through the aether. "Hey, Power Meter 316-631, whassup?" "Oh, I'm hanging at 314159 Kwhours at the moment, but my eddy currents are really bugging me man. How about you send in a replacement?" "Yeah, okay. Just chill for a week". What was the other name? CRM or something. CRM3000. Yes, that was it. CDMA Radio Module for the Mobile Station Modem 3000 [MSM3000]. Matsushita will love making those gadgets and they'll go everywhere. Q!Modem sounds better. Clark, that was ballistic? In defence of the idea that IPR should be community property, chimpanzees operate on the Monkey See, Monkey Do idea. I suppose Tero is right and people still operate on the principle of Yankee See, Yankee Do. Patents are a modern and sometimes subjective invention and like all modern thingies, Luddites don't take kindly to them. There is tacit acknowledgement of the idea that 'inventions' are to some extent like quantum states - every option exists and the process of observing something forces it into some boring wave function when it was having a nice time being in all states. Perhaps having another go at that, 'inventions' such as cdma are simply manifestations of how things work and what people do is figure out a way of observing the state of existence at a particular time. So to claim that if one holds a golf club like so, one can hit the ball straighter, it seems reasonable that somebody else could independently create the same method of holding a golf club. But if the method is patented, they can't hold it like that. Suppose there are two planets, and each has invented some way of producing force fields around themselves. They drift closer and discover each other. They argue who owns the intellectual property for force fields - and wheels because it turns out they both load hay on carts. Also, the signals coming from each seem to bear a remarkable resemblance to power control and CDMA. Ownership then becomes a question of agreement or power. Same as for ownership of material property. This gets cleared up by making patents on Planet Earth, or Planet USA only last for 15 years or so. So unlike ownership of other property, there is a tacit acknowledgement that patent property is inherently different from owning a baseball bat, which you are allowed to own for your life and after dying still own it in the sense of specifying the new 'owner'. So, I can see why many people think Q! should just hand over the goods for no charge, or a small engineering fee to cover the cost of development. But that will mean a breakdown in patent law and all the productive and creative energy millions of people are putting into new technologies. The New Paradigm will take a very big hit and Rwanda might become a nice place to live. By comparison anyway, because they have had a long time living like that and the process of getting to the Rwanda state from the New York state could be VERY ugly and involve a lot of machine gun fire. I can see that all the telecom companies, the service providers, European, Japanese, Korean governments, and the subscribers would like royalties to be near zero and why they accuse Q! of blocking the world's progress. Tough luck for them! The sound of many whining 747s is ecologically unpleasant and they should cease and desist. As Clark says, the letter was aimed at Qualcomm as being the main impediment. And Q! is the main impediment. If Q! gave way on royalties, and allowed a different chip rate, the new standards would roll on. The VW40 standard would become real. The Q! cdma2000 would be the backward compatible method to cdmaOne. But then there would be two standards and Vodafone would be unhappy. The ITU kleptocrats even want to specify what is a fair and normal royalty, as though intellectual property all has equal value. Talk about loopy. I'm sure Q! is happy to hold out and keep going ahead with cdma2000. I'm all for that. The USA isn't likely to cave in either. The USA economic power derives from their technology base. If patents aren't defended, then China will have a field day. Maurice