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: Jim Lurgio who wrote (23158)	2/21/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Jim, there has been much discussion about this sabre rattling exercise between ERICY and QCOM. If you ask me, I simply cannot see either side willing to risk it all by placing their companies' future in the hands of 12 unknown individuals in a small Texas town. Merit, facts, technology etc are not issues here. They WILL settle one way or another. It is good business, pure and simply. What disturbs me so far is the lack of a compromise proposal being discussed here or elsewhere. It either indicates that much work still needs to be done to reach a settlement or there may be a surprise announcement. I don't really like surprises too much anymore. Ramsey

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (23158)	2/21/1999 12:09:00 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

What will be decided and what will not? A few thoughts - this is a 1 patent debate. The whole issue revolves around ERICY claim that their single patent on soft handoff. The other issues are completely superfluous. As has been long debated, ERICY patent on handoff covers TDMA based systems. What is the impact of this one patent in relation to QCOM's portfolio of patents covering soft handoff, power control, spread spectrum, & all of the 1500 CDMA related patents? I would say the downside risk of 1 patent equals a small fraction of QCOM's total IPR. (1/10 of 1% - just a guess) I have been a little surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for the IBD article. ERICY's comment regarding their desire to cross license QCOM's CDMA patents was very intriguing. However, some thought it was some kind of spin by the ERICY PR machine. What is ERICY's real motivation to settle with QCOM? Apart from IPR debate, I think a deal would give them a significant competitive advantage over other European manufacturers in the 3.68 Mcps infrastructure market. If they had to spend another year redesigning their WCDMA system to accommodate the new chip speed again (they already went from 4.01 to 3.86), US companies would have a significant window of opportunity to do business in Europe without any competition. If ERICY cross licenses QCOM's CDMA technology, QCOM would get a significant OEM relationship with ERICY. How many references to this OEM deal have we heard about ever since the earnings conference call & his comments at CTIA? This week would be a real nail biter if truth were not on the side of QCOM. The critics say that anything can happen. QCOM has signed 60 royalty bearing CDMA licenses with every major teleomm company in the world except ERICY which is holding out on the basis of 1 patent regarding soft handoff. Again, the significance of this single patent is worth only a small fraction of QCOM's whole CDMA portfolio. Maybe ERICY held out from the cdmaOne market to avoid the R & D expense that has been very difficult for MOT, NOKA, PHG & LU, and many others. How many times did ERICY say that CDMA would not work? Now, they can step in and pay up for the 3G technology without having invested any time or money in the first wave. Meanwhile, they expanded their GSM base which they will ultimately convert to CDMA air interface. Sulpizio said a deal with ERICY would resolve all CDMA issues with ERICY including convergence. Now that ERICY is walking up to the courtroom steps on Monday, it is time for them to gracefully accept the compromise that is being offered. QCOM & ERICY are the biggest winners in this scenario - Nokia & Motorola are the biggest losers. I think there is no gain or loss for Nortel or Lucent.

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (23158)	2/21/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: Drew Williams	Respond to of 152472

<<The courts can be a big factor in anyone's destiny and I for one if being involved in a court case would much rather have my destiny in the hands of a judge than jurors.>> Depends on whether you're guilty or not. a) Had this been OJ's opinion, he'd be in prison for life with no possibility of parole. b) A lawyer friend of mine told me one time how it was much easier to bribe one judge than twelve jurors, but that it wasn't usually necessary to bribe all twelve. In this case, however, I tend to agree with you, because the odds are the court would not be able to find 12 impartial people who could understand the technical issues. I assume the judge will reach out for technical assistance.