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 (25235)	3/26/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: TShirtPrinter	Respond to of 152472

My comment is to Clark Hare. Thanks for all your input. I just turned the conference off also and agree with you interpretation. I was a bit worried about your concerns yesterday since it seemed to be out of character for you. I hope we both feel better now that we've heard the CC. Thanks again, Tony

To: Clarksterh who wrote (25235)	3/26/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Clark, what I got out of the conference call was, aside from some face saving gestures, ERICY received a NET discount on the CDMA license. This discount is probably so small that it is well worth getting them out of the way. I think one of the callers (did not catch name) got it right. He asked "what is the downside for QC on this deal, looks like you guys ripped ERICY off ..." (not exact words). What I think is most important is the fact that CDMA is the de facto standard for wireless communications going forward. It is funny that Maurice was praying for his 80 target for 8 years while his second target of 100 was blown through in 2 seconds while he is sleeping. Ramsey

To: Clarksterh who wrote (25235)	3/26/1999 4:15:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

One thing that made a big impression on me from the call was Dr J's response to the question of whether ERICY actually got anythinm out of the deal. Dr J responded very forcefully that ERICY got a very very good price on the infrastructure division, a "gift" which may turn out as usual to be very farsighted. By turning the other cheek, Q may actually end up with a much stronger ally in ERICY than we are expecting..Dave

To: Clarksterh who wrote (25235)	3/26/1999 5:40:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Clark: 5) Qualcomm will now pay some smallish amount of royalties to Ericsson for all phones shipped (but they never mentioned having to pay royalties for ASICs even though the general subject of royalties owable to Ericsson came up several times. I would assume from this and item #6 below that they aren't paying appreciable royalties for ASICs, but it would be nice to know for sure. If so this is a better deal than I expected.) My notes say they will pay a smallish royalty ONLY on the handsets they sell. Period. No ASIC royalties. As a matter of fact, those pass-thru rights make the deal even sweeter. If you buy ASICs from QCOM, you do not have to screw with ERICY. If not, you have to make your own deal with ERICY, which Nokia, for instance, is doing. Think about that. If you want a quick simple solution that uses the best ASICs, and you want the deal unencumbered by IPR issues, buy QCOM ASICs. Otherwise, it is much more complicated. The other ASIC manufacturers? Forget 'em. 10) The royalties for all CDMA modes will be identical. ( It wasn't completely clear whether this included CDMAOne, but my impression was that it did. I agree. I think at one point they even said that royalties will be independent of the "flavor" of CDMA. This call cleared up a number of questions for me. The world is our royalty paying customer now. I guess that is the bottom line. Oh--let's not forget the $160 million loss that was just dumped. Watch those EPS #'s jump!

To: Clarksterh who wrote (25235)	3/27/1999 2:05:00 PM
From: Jack Bridges	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Re: Your #13. My notes quote the answer to Cabi's question about royalty distinctions as being a categorical "None." As to the royalty split, I thought the closest answer was 'We have several hundred patents and hundreds more pending---don't know how many Ericy has.' They may not "know" whether it's 2 or 20 or some such diddly number, but the clear inference was that the split is like a fine spray of vermouth to a very dry martini. Cheers! Jack Bridges