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: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (25548)	3/30/1999 8:48:00 AM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Mika: To answer someone's speculation concerning if Ericsson were in a stronger position than this board/thread gave them credit for...from what I have heard (and what I had always said) is that yes, Ericy were indeed in a far stronger position than realised here. Poppycock!!! ERICY gave up the ship here. If they had any bargaining power, they would not be paying royalties at the same rate as all other licensees for cdmaONE and ANY 3G version of CDMA that may come to pass. I'll repeat--ERICY is paying the same royalty rate as all other licensees for this generation and next generation technologies. So will everyone else. They will buy QCOM ASICs for base stations and handsets. QCOM fed them a bone in selling infrastructure to them(regaedless of the price they paid), kind of like sending them an e-mail with the Melissa Virus. "Go forth and spread CDMA my friends--send the checks for royalties to Q HQ!" Face it--Q was never to become a major infrastructure player. In essence, they just became one, with 100% margins+(sell the ASICs, and collect the royalty). ERICY can call the next generation anything they want, but Q calls it another round of licensing fees and royalties at a rate similar to what they get now. What does ERICY get? A tiny royalty from Q handset sales and the ability to spread CDMA worldwide to the benefit of Qualcomm.

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (25548)	3/30/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: engineer	Respond to of 152472

It would seem that perhaps Mr. Cabi did not get good information from his main source, eh? Why don't you make sure he got it right, instead of saying that now that he is finally reporting reality, that he didn't get it right? Perhaps he really did sit down and think about his career versus the future.....