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 (24980)	3/25/1999 11:43:00 AM
From: John Dough	Respond to of 152472

Clark, since you brought up Microsoft, what is Microsoft really selling? It's mostly IP and licensing. They produce very little hardware. Why can't Q be very successful in the same way? Regards, Mark T.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24980)	3/25/1999 11:45:00 AM
From: Robert Sheldon	Respond to of 152472

I get the feeling that a lot of Institutional Investors are scrambling around this morning trying to figure out just who QCOM really is. Do not forget that we have just witnessed a tremendous dis-information campaign projected onto QCOM's prospects from various analysts as well as the likes of the Wall Street Journal.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24980)	3/25/1999 11:45:00 AM
From: Jeff Vayda	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Clark, from the Qualcomm press release - 'With the resolution of 3G and the cross-licensing of our patents, QUALCOMM and ERICSSON have paved the way for the expansion of global CDMA-based wireless communications,'' said Dr. Irwin Mark Jacobs, chairman and chief executive officer of QUALCOMM Incorporated. ''ERICSSON's purchase of our infrastructure division underscores its commitment to CDMA, and allows ERICSSON, one of the world's leading telecommunications equipment manufacturers, to expand its CDMA capabilities. QUALCOMM can now focus on its core businesses, including CDMA phones and chipsets, the Globalstar and OmniTRACS systems and new opportunities in digital cinema, wireless data and Eudora products and services.'' Core Business of CDMA phones, Did the Q trade infrastructure for phones? If that is the agreement (the reason for Eric's less than inspiring new offerings?) and the Q can start up 3 or 4 plants next week, I would be more inclined to say the deal is a long term positive. Jeff Vayda

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24980)	3/25/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: Bux	Respond to of 152472

None of the recent press releases have indicated QCOM has agreed not to compete with ERICY in infrastructure. Anyone care to comment on the chance that QCOM will start another infrastructure division in San Diego or even in Mexico? QCOM has not represented the best interests of it's infrastructure engineers since the Q is well known as a great employer. I'm not saying the Q should have taken the employees interests over all other interests so let's not debate that. But my point is, I doubt the agreement between Q and E prohibited the Q from hiring whoever they wanted (in other words, the engineers are free agents). ERICY needed to get up to speed fast on infrastructure and QCOM was loosing money. Could this be a "restructuring" of the infrastructure in disguise? Sorry to be hung-up on infrastructure, but Greggs projections towards profitability and the potential size of this market have left me feeling ripped-off. Like I've said before, I'm in this for the long-term and I think Clarks MSFT example has merit.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24980)	3/25/1999 11:59:00 AM
From: Mark Fleming	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Mark - ERICY up a point or two. QCOM up ten. Those in the know must know that QCOM is getting the better end of the deal. 1 points for Ericsson = 1.8B dollars of market cap. 10 points for Qualcomm = <0.8B dollars of market cap. Thus, ignoring the possibility of random moves in stock price, the market believes the deal is better for Ericsson than Qualcomm. Sorry. Actually, we should look at the percentage gain, which is higher for QCOM.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (24980)	3/25/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: bdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

<<I apologize for being such a nay sayer, since this is definitely near term accretive (next 1 to 2 years) for Qualcomm, but it feels like it would if Microsoft had sold the rights to DOS in 87 for $5B - very accretive but the unnecessary loss of a great opportunity.>> I don't think the analogy holds. The Q sold an unprofitable component of the business - one which they might never be able to develop to full potential given competitive and political realities. They still own CDMA IPR (DOS) and will be licensing and receiving royalties until the cows come you know where.