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 : Ericsson overlook? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2768)	2/11/1999 3:41:00 PM
From: P2V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5390

Thank You for the summary, Mika.

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2768)	2/11/1999 3:44:00 PM
From: Raymond	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 5390

It's a lot of discussions here on SI and on Yahoo about who supports convergence and who's not.Vodaphone-Airtouch is for example mentioned as supporters of convergence.All companies wants convergence.All operators and manufacturers want's the radioparameters to be so it's easy to make multimodephones.But it doesn't meant that they supports QCOM's position.QCOM interest is to get as much licensing money as possible.That's the reason why QCOM says that they will not license out their IPR:s to WCDMA.One of the big differences is how you synchronize the basestations.In IS-95 GPS is used and all basestations will get the same clock.That is a disadvantage where GPS is not avalible..NTT Docomo is one of the main inventors of WCDMA.In Japan they have major parts of the mobile traffic inside in buildings and railwaystations.They need to synchronize without GPS. So then they decided to go for asynchronous basestations.You use systemframenumbers and timingcells between the basestationcontrollers and the basestations to synchronize.This is a technical advancement but it will not give QCOM any money so they are very much against it.I think this is one of the big problems with QCOM:s position.They don't want any changes in their standard if it means that they will lose IPR-money.That position will only stall technical development. /R

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2768)	2/13/1999 4:58:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5390

Mika, A shame for Ericy that they don't have the technology to position themselves in the mobility and IP arena. Qualcomm has it. To say no other company has really repositioned themselves in to the mobility and IP arena isn't strictly true either in the sense that Qualcomm is fully in that postion and has always been. Their motto is: "We're Building the Wireless World". They are well on the way to doing it. They included IP in their systems way back in 1990 with some prescience. Ericy won't be even in the top two handset suppliers if they don't manage to come to some agreement on buying Qualcomm's technology, so you shouldn't complain that a newswire headline flatters Ericy by allowing that "Ericsson aims to be one of the top two handset suppliers". The headline could have said: "Ericy still in IPR dreamworld, but stuck in the Olde Worlde reality of GSM and other obsolete technology." If Ericy could come to some arrangement with Qualcomm they might do okay. Otherwise.... [I guess they'll need to pay a billion or two up front and agree to a permanent 10% IPR royalty.] Maurice