Replies to post #16784 on Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[IronAir]

Normally impressed by Lex ... but a couple of odd assertions somehow made their way into this very pithy column:

~ {note ... I don't have time today, but someone could set up a comment space on this topic at Lex --> http://forums.ft.com/2/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=ptpc&s=646099322&f=813102159 }

LEX: "They say that Qualcomm's share of WCDMA IP is lower than for CDMA2000, while its royalty rates are the same. Qualcomm disputes this, but offers no alternative analysis."

(HUH? NEWS TO ME. WHY SHOULD THE 'TOTAL' IP BE THE SAME FOR WCDMA AS IT IS FOR CDMA2000? DIDN'T THE WORK OF THE CABAL ADD ANY VALUE? IF SO, THEN THEY SHOULD ALSO ASSESS A CHARGE. IF THERE IS NOT EXTRA VALUE, THEN PERHAPS THERE IS NO REASON FOR W-CDMA TO EXIST. )

LEX: "Financial metrics suggest massively excessive returns."
What is the benchmark for determining 'excessive'?

Who is the arbiter? No one has to use CDMA for 3G . . . they can use TDMA.

It was only a few years ago that we investors were all told CDMA would not work. Then a group of corporate bullies arranged for lawmakers to twist standards so that their own fat-cat pockets were filled. THIS WAS NOT THE MARKET FREELY DECIDING, this action SUBVERTED USEFUL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, CAUSED HIGHLY REGULATED TELECOMS CARRIERS TO PASS ALONG TO CONSUMERS THEIR INTEREST COSTS ON 3G SPECTRUM BOUGHT, EFFECTIVELY A COVERT TAX, ....
..... AND NOW THE FORCES BEHIND THIS ILLICIT ACTIVITY ARE PLAYING IT LIKE THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS?