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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (23453)	2/25/1999 9:06:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Art, thanks for the informed and well-reasoned thoughts. So often the discussion here becomes so myopic. You have provided us with a much needed and all too rare wide-angle view. When QCOM hits 90, I'm sure many will sell figuring they have doubled their investment. I was tempted to do that with MSFT over and over and I'm glad I didn't. When a great company gets on a roll, sometimes they are hard to stop. Besides, why pay the taxes until it's necessary?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (23453)	2/25/1999 10:06:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Other Ericsson patents: I did another search through all of Ericsson's reissued patents, and discovered the other two reissues (issued early Feb 99): 1) RE036079 which is a reissue of 5109528, the latter of which has been discussed before. Surprisingly, as weak as 5109528 is, it is still stronger than the other two patents (including the two other reissues). No need to discuss it again. 2) RE036078 which is a reissue of 5327577. In this case Ericsson has gotten very very tricky with the English language. Given that the reissue was filed for more than 2 years after the original grant they could not enlarge the scope. However, they added words that if read one way do indeed fit within the scope of the original patent, but if read another way 'read on' Qualcomm's handoff technique (however, even so, Qualcomm has an earlier patent describing the same thing (combining two different data streams coming from different cells)). Just FYI - the wording is kind of neat 'Combining information tramsitted by the first BS and information transmitted by the second BS ...'. The original Ericsson patent strictly speaking did indeed talk about combining such info - at the bit-by-bit RF reception level (there is a very quick reference to combining it at a higher level, but no details are given - almost certainly not enforceable especially given Qualcomm's earlier and more detailled patent.) But in a quick read the new claims in Ericsson's patent read as if they mean combining the streams at a higher level which is a very different process. Given the Ericsson patents which they are using in the trial I would say that the strongest is the one I looked at several months ago, and that is pretty weak. (Although, it should be noted that it may be difficult to transmit this to a judge.) I can't believe Ericsson doesn't know this, so I am curious as to what Ericsson's motives are. Are they hoping that Qualcomm will bumble it? Are they hoping that Qualcomm will cave? Is it purely for the show? Maybe their other patents are stronger, but then why did they not dismiss these? ??? Clark

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (23453)	2/25/1999 10:35:00 PM
From: Thomas Sprague	Respond to of 152472

Art, Thank you for your very articulate comments. I have been an owner of that convertible prf. for quiet some time and am one happy camper. TDS P.S. That is still one heck of an investment. IMHO

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (23453)	2/25/1999 10:44:00 PM
From: straight life	Respond to of 152472

Great to see the views of a long term value investor; I agree with most of what you say, esp. the Barrons/WSJ comments. One thing, however; it's been noted several times that when price and time objectives or prophesies are put on this thread, the stock tanks. I remember in late '97 qdog (among others) spoke of a +$100 price by Feb.-Mar. --of '98. Neither qdog nor that particular prognostication have been heard from since. But starting in Jan., on the other hand, Q! stock has been on a tear, thank you, without a single prediction. So, just a note of caution-- we all want the Q! stock price to do well-- but it seems safer & more productive to let... higher powers (for lack of a better term) control the timing of that advance.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (23453)	2/26/1999 3:31:00 AM
From: Peter J Hudson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

To All, Just a word about Art Bechhoefer and AOL. Art was the moderator of the AOL investment thread before the Motley Fools came around. He also ran a chat room for investors on Sunday evenings. Art's recommendation caused me to research QCOM in early 1992. I believe his earliest references to the Q focused on HDTV, but soon turned to wireless. Art is a true fundamental investor (advisor) and has hung in there with the Q for the last 7 years. He has had many other good picks too. AOL is annoying with there pop up adds and spam, but they do have some very good content, especially for investors. In the early years I subscribed to compuserve, AOL & Genie. Genie was the only way to get to Schwab's electronic trading. Although I don't care for AOL as an internet provider, I still keep my AOL account for $9.95/month and access it through my ISP. AOL is the "readers digest" of ISPs, you don't want it to be your only source, but it's still fun to read. It's nice to see Art contributing here. He has much wisdom! Pete

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (23453)	2/26/1999 7:48:00 AM
From: John Stichnoth	Respond to of 152472

OFF TOPIC: Dow Jones (WSJ, Barrons, Dow Jones Newswires) does seem to get a bug up their butts on companies. I remember in the 1970's, when Mobil was running those ads on the Op Ed page of the NY Times, they couldn't buy a favorable story in The Journal. In the 1980's it was Union Carbide's turn. All you saw for years were negative reporting. Carbide even began putting out press releases to rebut some of the Dow Jones statements. In at least one instance, Dow Jones Newswires (which had much more of a monopoly than it has today) even refused to release one of Carbide's press releases. Their statement was that they were seeking comment from the reporter, and the release didn't get out until after the close of trading! (No wonder Dow Jones Newswires lost its preeminent position.) Whether it's some editorial policy or lack of editorial control of their reporters it does "make you wonder". js