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: Clarksterh who wrote (24948)	3/25/1999 9:50:00 AM
From: 2brasil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Ericsson Expects to Have About 40 Pct of Total Cdma Market in 2004

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24948)	3/25/1999 9:58:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 152472

Clark.. I too am concerned we didn't get enough but we'll have to wait and see. How can they have "sold" the division for zip? Not possible unless of course Ericsson had a much stronger patent case than we realized....Too early for post mortems IMO..Dave

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24948)	3/25/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: SKIP PAUL	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Clark, With all due respect you are quibbling over pennies. This makes CDMA the undisputed worldwide standard free to be rapidly deployed without lawsuits etc. It Is huge

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24948)	3/25/1999 10:35:00 AM
From: D.J.Smyth	Respond to of 152472

Clark <<1) High margins on infrastructure sales are now beyond reach and no cash was obtained in swap. 2) Ericsson benefitted massively from their past tactics. This is hardly going to discourage them from similar tactics in the future, and in the future Qualcomm is not likely to have as strong a hand. If they were tied together in a joint venture this would be a lot less of a problem, but... .>> do we know the probability of ERICY shelving technology to go with their own proprietary brand? Suppose that depends in part on how much ERICY paid for this. Possibly there's some "minimum support clause"?