Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
This should get interesting
Qualcomm big contributor to Clinton
Nokia big contributor to President Bush
????
OT Hi, did you have any Dodger favorites when they arrived in LA. Now back to business.
Thank you - appreciate the links.
Mare
What about Sharp - Doesn't their current contract expire 4/1?
Thank you, appreciate it.
Mare
Because if he does, then he couldn't jerk everyone chain, and that is what he loves to do.
Mare
I have a neighbor who loves Baseball and played alot of it.
What web site do you get those great pictures from?
Must E-mail it to him, if okay with you?
I also love baseball and try to reconize each one.
Thank you,
Mare
Bet it feels like we all are at Santa Anita or whatever and they have come around the streach?
Take off your blinders. Jim provided us with the Coffee Shop along time ago, because we needed a place to express ourselves
on the war. Coffee shop only a few clicks away.
Good show - So hope the race includes Seattle Slew and Bettlebomb. Boy were they good in the streach.
Good luck, and this surely has been a good week for all us longs.
Mare
TC - Wow, what a way for a bet to finish down to the last hour.
Here is hoping that IDCC shoots up past 20.00 for you and your son.
Marilyn
I had the same problem. You have to click the forward and than the zip file to open, least on mine you did.
Marilyn
I would also appreciate a copy of Tom's report.
MHendri33@lvcm.com
Thank you,
Marilyn
Loop, I will be pulling for her also, as Spain is a beautifull
place in my eyes and she should see it before crossing over.
Don't forget COQ10 vitimin and Swiss Chard really helps us older folks.
Marilyn
Why do you think this Jim. I have held this one for year's also?
This really sounds good to me. Glad you held in there, as you really have to - to catch the brass ring in life.
I love reading about NEC, and am very happy that they are doing so well and hope they become #1. Why, because they pay us?
Marilyn
Thank you for sharing. Kitty looks just like my cat of many moons ago. I laugh so hard and reran it several times.
Marilyn
Thats what I said to myself. He sure isn't through buying yet.
The only thing that helps me with this stock is batting clean-up so many years. It's tough, but hang in there.
Maybee we will hear something when the boys of winter get home from Cannes? You know it takes everyone to release a memo.
Nokia Corporation (NYSE: NOK)
Reply to msg. Post new msg. Email this msg.
By: slysmith
19 Feb 2003, 11:50 PM EST Msg. 19672 of 19674
(This msg. is a reply to 19667 by yosselone.)
Nokia, Qualcomm Battle Over 3G Market-Share
Nokia Corp., the world's leading cellphone maker, and Qualcomm Inc., a maker of chips for wireless devices, play in different markets. But the two companies are treading on each other's toes in what is shaping up as one of the biggest rivalries in the wireless world.
Qualcomm is arming Nokia's Asian rivals with the electronics they need to compete with the Finnish company in the nascent market for third generation, or 3G, phones designed to play video clips and tap into the Internet, as well as make voice calls.
Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. of South Korea and Sanyo Electric Co. of Japan are among those rolling out 3G phones using Qualcomm's chips. While 3G phones made up only about 8% of global sales last year, some believe they are likely to eventually account for the vast majority.
If Nokia is to increase sales in its flagship mobile-phone division much further, analysts believe it must win share from Qualcomm's customers in the 3G market. That, in turn, would limit the San Diego chip maker's own growth prospects.
The two companies are "butting heads," says Michael King, a senior analyst with technology-research firm Gartner Inc. of Stamford, Conn.
Competing on Two Fronts
Aside from Nokia, Qualcomm is one of the few companies in the cellphone industry generating enough profits to comfortably fund the hefty research-and-development effort needed to create handset technology for both the two main 3G standards: Wideband Code Division Multiple Access, known as WCDMA, and CDMA 2000. In the case of WCDMA, these phones also need to be able to run on existing networks using the Global System for Mobile Communications, or GSM, standard. Semiconductor industry executives estimate it costs as much as $400 million to develop the necessary electronics for a GSM/WCDMA phone.
CELLPHONE FACEOFF
• See charts comparing Nokia and Qualcomm's performance.
THE ABCS OF WIRELESS
Can't keep your 3G straight from your CDMA? Our expanded glossary will help you sort through wireless jargon.
Tangled in a web of woes, cellphone companies face increasing pressure to merge. Meet the players in the world of wireless.
Nokia, which has nearly 50% of the GSM market, says it has shipped 10,000 test units of its first GSM/WCDMA handset, which uses its own chip design. The Finnish company plans a full commercial launch of that phone in the near future. Qualcomm expects handset makers to begin shipping phones using its GSM/WCDMA chips later this year. Both companies are showing 3G phones running video clips at a trade show this week in Cannes, France.
Irwin Jacobs, chief executive officer of Qualcomm, says his company aims to capture 50% of the market for chips to control GSM/WCDMA handsets. However, he acknowledges Nokia is likely to design its own chips and will remain a competitor. "Nokia is such a major force, they could maybe withstand" the trend to buy off-the-shelf chips from external suppliers, such as Qualcomm, Mr. Jacobs says.
Kari Tuutti, a spokesman for Nokia, says his company believes developing its own handset chips helps it make innovative phones with distinctive shapes and features. Nokia regards the major cellphone makers, rather than Qualcomm, as its main competitors, Mr. Tuutti says.
In any case, analysts believe Nokia has the technology, marketing and manufacturing expertise to fend off Qualcomm's customers in the WCDMA market, which is likely to account for the majority of cellphone sales long term. But they say the U.S. company presents a formidable barrier to the Nokia's ambitions in the other standard, CDMA 2000.
The vast majority of the 33 million CDMA 2000 phones shipped last year contained Qualcomm's chips. Nokia, which uses its own CDMA 2000 chip design, had less than 5% of that market, according to investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Mr. Tuutti declines to comment on that figure, but he says Nokia intends to make significant market-share gains this year in CDMA 2000.
Analysts say Nokia has failed to keep up with Qualcomm's customers in rolling out CDMA 2000 models with color screens and location-finding abilities.
In addition to their race to develop the best 3G chips, the two companies are fighting a long-running propaganda war to persuade operators to adopt their preferred-network technologies. Most operators have chosen WCDMA, but "there is still an ideological divide between the two companies," says Mark Paxman, a consultant with PA Consulting Group in Cambridge, England.
Software Clashes
Nokia and Qualcomm are also beginning to clash in the cellphone software market. Qualcomm advocates operators use its Brew technology to deliver games and other services to users, while Nokia pushes the Java programming language running atop its own Series 60 handset software.
There seems little prospect of a truce. Despite its weak position in the CDMA 2000 market, Nokia has stubbornly refused to use Qualcomm's chips, continuing to pump euros into developing its own.
Don Shrock, head of Qualcomm's chipset division, says his company is intent on minimizing the Finnish company's market share. "You're either with us or you're against us," says Mr. Shrock. "We're going to keep the pressure on folks who don't use our chips."
Posted by: Sofa King
In reply to: mickeybritt who wrote msg# 4002 Date:1/17/2003 12:58:26 PM
Post #of 10240
Mickey, the only way I see that explanation as plausible is if you were the buyer.
Someone could probably check the actual prices, but I'd be more inclined to believe the Jan 15s went thru at .15 when the stock was trading closer to 15. The Seller sold 1000 Jan15s at the bid and used the proceeds to offset buying 1000 Feb15s.
The 1000 Feb15 calls is a big investment. Someone's betting large that the stock will be $16.50+ by mid Feb.
BTW, Jan15 options close today, in case you meant next Friday
IDCC loves Tuesdays shorts.
Where is my apology - I predicted good earnings and you told me I was nuts. Couldn't show up until now could you?
My Grandfather was 100% Swede and about the same age when he came through to Ellis Island.
He told me that he just wanted to get out of Sweden, because of the way that they think.
Erickson, Harris and all of the rest just vertifies this.
Maybe, the board is where she gets her answers also.
Guys, can we forget polictics - Jim verses Mickey, and get back to business? If we are lucky next Tuesday with good earnings for us, everyone will be feeling better.
/ top news / u.s. / world / business / sports / health / tech / arts / search /
Feb 5, 5:49 AM EST
Nokia's New Phone Features Video Games
By MATT MOORE
AP Business Writer
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Nokia Corp., already the world's biggest maker of mobile phones, is pioneering a new market with its unveiling Wednesday of a hybrid that combines video gaming with wireless telephony.
The N-Gage is a far cry from the Finnish company's traditional crop of phones. Most of its current models come standard with simple games like Snake or versions of the classic Tetris.
Boasting a color screen and GSM technology that will make it usable in Nokia's major markets including the United States, the N-Gage is the company's first foray into handheld gaming.
The N-Gage could even help usher in serious multiplayer mobile gaming, giving the battered wireless industry a needed revenue boost.
"It is a global product," Kari Tuutti, Nokia's vice president of communications for mobile phones, told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "The mobility and the connectivity that we are bringing to the gaming industry will be a very interesting value proposition for the consumers."
Latest News
Sprint Reports $39 Million Earnings in 4Q
Circuit City to Cut 2,000 Jobs
Sotheby's Ends Auctions on eBay
S. Korea Denies Assisting Chip Firms
Level 3, Genuity Close Acquisition Deal
Tuutti wouldn't release the price or other details about the N-Gage. The company planned to debut it Wednesday night in London.
Some details of the device, first announced in November, have been revealed by stores in Europe, however.
The N-Gage is a half-moon-shaped device that measures 5.2 by 2 inches and is an inch thick. It has a 4,096-color active-matrix display and built-in camera for video and still images. Like other Nokia-made phones, it offers Short Message Service text messaging and Internet access. It uses the Java language for downloading applications to the phone and has built-in Bluetooth technology for short-range wireless connectivity to devices such as printers.
But the N-Gage differs vastly from other handsets in its gaming potential.
Nokia said its games will be console-quality, boasting better color and sound and more akin to those found on Nintendo's Gameboy Advance.
Dubbed rich mobile gaming, it's geared toward bringing high-speed, well-defined color games to players' palms. Like Nokia's handheld Communicator 9210, the N-Gage uses the Symbian operating system.
Espoo, Finland-based Nokia lined up Sega Corp. and Eidos PLC to develop games. Nokia will publish its own games, too.
But whether Nokia, which sold more than 170 million handsets last year, can compete with Nintendo remains to be seen.
Nintendo's Gameboy Advance was introduced in 2001. As of last September, Nintendo had sold nearly 24 million worldwide.
Chris Sessing of Los Angeles-based Crowell, Weedon & Co., said Nokia isn't banking its future on the N-Gage. Yet the very consumers who are attracted to Gameboys also tend to gravitate toward mobile phones, he said.
"It makes sense to combine the two platforms into one, but it will be difficult to sell purely on a gaming platform without the mobile phone portion," he said.
Nokia has an entrenched share of the global mobile handset market and commands a loyal following, said Kulbinder Garcha, a London-based analyst with CS First Boston.
"When you sell 170 million phones, it's a reasonable market to go after. They want to piggyback on it," he said. "The more functionality they incorporate with the device, the more chances consumers will pay for it."
Tuutti would not say whether Nokia would market the device through phone resellers or seek alternative venues like electronics stores or mass-market merchandisers.
Garcha said Nokia's existing distribution market could help it sell thousands of N-Gages to buyers who aren't afraid to pay top prices for new technology.
---
On the Net:
No we won't, we are IDCC stockholders.
Marilyn
Sorry not my comments, it was Itclyr on the Yahoo Board. He is the JK over there. I wanted to share them on this board.
Guess I need some work on my cut and paste all of the articles are not appearing on our board. Will continue to post these when I come across some good ones, and hopefully
they will show the person who should be credited.
Marilyn
Mickey, I only had 600 shares of Quallcom when it was off to the races. Needless to say I became a millionaire before the market went south and my money followed. I am a senior on social security and have 1500 shares, but if it hits that is more than enough. The point is you can build up your shares every day like I did on Quallcom. Eureka Mickey
Marilyn
OT - You mean you don't get burnt enough on the board - just kiddin couldn't resist. Life is sure a yoyo - up and down up and down.
PS - Our sun has turned to wind and now everything is really blowin - desert wind.
Have a good Sunday
Marilyn
OT - Moose I sun bathed outside today, I agree such a beautifull day. Your neighbor from Las Vegas.
Marilyn
This was done by Itclyr on the Rambus Yahoo Board. He is like our JK. I thought it was most interesting, so put it up here.
Marilyn
Other Cases
by: itclyr 02/01/03 10:33 pm
Msg: 436172 of 436173
Watz, good to hear from you again. I think the current CAFC opinion may have more significance than your post indicates for the other cases. At the very least, to the extent the same patents are in suit, the claim construction by the lower courts in those case CANNOT be inconsistent with the CAFC opinion. Claim construction is a matter of LAW (that's what Markman v Westview said and why claim construction hearings are now called "Markman hearings"), not questions of fact for the jury. Since the CAFC has said as a matter of law what the claims in suit mean, I think it is now impossible for those claims to be attacked, AT LEAST ON THE CONSTRUED TERMS. There may be other elements to argue about, but we shouldn't be forced to deal with garbage like bus = muxed bus again. Potential infringers (at least their lawyers) will know this and tread very carefully before the other courts. Judge Payne's woodshedding most definitely won't be lost on the other courts, and they'll try hard to avoid irritating the CAFC.
ITC
ITC
Marilyn
Analysis of Fed Circuit Decision--III
by: itclyr 02/01/03 10:04 pm
Msg: 436133 of 436159
6. Enough of the bad stuff. This was a COLOSSAL legal victory, and will likely saddle Infineon with all of the baggage at the new trial that RMBS bore before the first jury. The fraud part of the case wasn't reversed and remanded, it was reversed and RENDERED. The CAFC held as a matter of law that what RMBS did wasn't fraud. That means there is no justiciable issue here for the lower court to hear. The next jury likely won't even be able to hear it. So much for Infineon's "bad guy" case. Now it's a straightforward case of showing each element is there, and that shouldn't take long. I wouldn't be surprised to see RMBS file motions for summary judgment on infringement after the briefs are filed.
7. Let's not forget the most breathtaking part of the case-- the reversal of the claim construction. The CAFC slammed Payne repeatedly for what he did. He was reversed on every aspect of the case, and on the fraud part, as I've said, he wasn't even given the courtesy of a remand for further consideration-- they took it completely out of his hands. (Put yourself in the shoes of the FTC lawyers right about now-- how would you like to get from the CAFC a little of what Judge Payne got. Not, as they say, good resume filler. I doubt much will come of that silly attempt at piling on). Judge Payne may still dislike RMBS, but no Judge likes to get the shellacking he took from an appellate court, and if he's as good a jurist as Croaker said he appeared to be, he should reverse completely his attorney's fees holding, as its principal legal basis has now disappeared. Even sweeter, he can't say "bus" means "muxed bus" even if he still wanted to-- that would be a writ of mandamus to the CAFC in about 24 hours.
8. Settlement? Maybe, but frankly, I hope not, at least in this case. RMBS was pretty bold in stating before the first trial that they wouldn't license litigated infringers. Why give up a winning hand now? I hope they hang Infineon from the highest lamppost and then settle at high royalty rates with the others. Nothing makes potential infringers respect your IP more than the dead bodies of their predecessors. Not only would the current patents be virtually untouchable, but a lot of their current licensing negotiations, even in completely different areas like controllers, will suddenly have a somewhat different tone. The CAFC's opinion actually goes a long way toward that already.
9. Enough already. Congrats to longs. And to the shorts, I will keep ignoring you just as I always have.
ITC
Ranger #9. is for you, as this is what you keep telling us at the Coffee shop.
Marilyn
Analysis of Fed Circuit Decision-- II
by: itclyr 02/01/03 10:02 pm
Msg: 436132 of 436157
CONTINUED
4. When I heard the oral argument I was surprised that there was really no discussion at all of the claim construction. The entire hearing dealt with the fraud case. I posted before and during the lower court trial that I thought the whoe fraud issue was bogus, and for mostly the same reasons the CAFC said so. All of RMBS cases are continuation applicaitons, NOT continuations-in-part. That means that the specification has been the same since April 1990. It's pretty hard to conspire to keep secret in 1994 what was already published in Europe in 1992. Infineon's argument that RMBS should have disclosed that it had other applications with other claims always seemed ridiculous on its fact to me. If you have patent lawyers worth their salt YOU ALREADY KNOW that is possible, in fact likely. More to the point, is is literally IMPOSSIBLE for RMBS (or any patent applicant, for that matter) to know what claims the patent Examiner will allow until he or she, in fact, allows them. So until claims are ACTUALLY ALLOWED it is nothing but arrogance (and likely an antitrust violation) to say to your competitors "Here are some claims we think we're going to get." If any tactic is an unfair restraint on trade THAT would be it. Why was that so hard to understand?
5. The absence of any claim construction discussion meant either that both sides knew Payne would likely get reversed on that point or that Infineon was so confident it would stand that they were trying to deliver a death blow to RMBS' IP by forever tainting its entire portfolio with the whiff of fraud. Judge Payne's claim construction seemed nuts to me, but his opinion was actually fairly well done, at least enough, in my opinion, to allow the CAFC to uphold it on appeal if they wanted to. I suspect that they wanted to remove the notion Judge Payne set forth in the world that aggressive development and use of IP is somehow not just immoral, but illegal. That, however, is sheer speculation on my part, and I must acknowledge as much.
ITC
Message Thread [ View ] Profanity filter is Off [ Turn On ]
< Previous / Next > [ First / Last / Msg List ] Msg #: Reply Post
All Subject Message Text Authors
Marilyn
Analysis of Fed Circuit Decision- I
by: itclyr 02/01/03 09:58 pm
Msg: 436126 of 436154
It has been about two years since I've posted on the RMBS board. Greetings again to Watz, hodb, Croaker, and others who have had the intestinal fortitude to hold on. After Judge Payne (what an appropriate name) entered his decision most longs abandoned the board as nothing but a sewer for the shorts. Until the Fed Circuit had its say, there didn't seem to be much reason to post, so I stopped. For those interested (and that should be a small lot) I'll post my view of the Fed Circuit's decision and a few thoughts. Thanks to Watz for sending me the audio of the CAFC oral argument.
1. RMBS lost the lower court case after Payne's Markman decision. Infineon's decision to argue that "bus" means "multiplexed bus" was so off the wall that I didn't believe anybody could fall for it, but these "hail Mary" claim constructions occasionally succeed, and you have to salute Infineon's lawyers for the audacity of it.
2. Audacious or not, it also says quite a lot about how weak their infringement case must be. When you decide which patents to sue on, you go with the ones that have the fewest warts for the other side to attack, and most of all the cleanest proof of infringement. Those of you who were here may recall that I questioned Croaker Frog closely on this board after his return from Richmond, because I didn't hear him discuss RMBS' actual proof of infringement, which usually consists of your expert witness marching element-by-element through each claim, comparing each element to the accused device, and showing that it is present. It wasn't clear at first how devastating the Markman ruling was, but the fact that that didn't happen brought it home.
3. Most of the other evils that befell RMBS trace directly to the claim construction. Usually both parties try to paint the other side as the bad guy to the jury. Showing the other side infringes usually goes pretty far to hanging the black hat on them, but in this case RMBS couldn't even try in on Infineon for size because of the claim construction. Infineon then had a field day piecing together bits and pieces of what RMBS did at the JEDEC meetings to create a hindsight straw monster--while RMBS was prevented from showing the other side as blatant willful infringers. In this regard, the most outrageous part of the trial was Payne's refusal to provide jury instructions that filing continuation patent applications following a multiple restriction requirement is perfectly legal. In fact, it would have been LEGAL MALPRACTICE in my opinion, if RMBS' lawyers hadn't done what they did. As a patent lawyer, what they did in prosecution is textbook good portfolio management. I know. I do that for a living. I could actually forgive Payne for botching the Markman hearing (although that's as bad a decision as I've ever heard) but if he has an unforgiveable sin here in my opinion it was his wretched jury instructions. Even Judge Rader pointed out in oral argument to Ken Starr that most if not all of RMBS' prosecution tactics were perfectly legal.
ITC
Message Thread [ View ] Profanity filter is Off [ Turn On ]
< Previous / Next > [ First / Last / Msg List ] Msg #: Reply Post
All Subject Message Text Authors
Marilyn