SI
SI
discoversearch

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.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.

   Technology StocksQualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Jim Mullens who wrote (131820)7/15/2016 12:54:20 PM
From: JeffreyHF
   of 161082
 
Weren't those relating to the video compression standard?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Qurious who wrote (131800)7/15/2016 1:11:18 PM
From: badger3
11 Recommendations   of 161082
 
So I'm not happy at all with this letter that Jacobs signed off on. If he wants to campaign in his personal time for one candidate or the other..that is fine..but signing off on that letter as "Executive Chairman,Qualcomm Inc" ..drags the company into it...and risks retribution if his preferred candidate loses in November.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: JeffreyHF who wrote (131821)7/15/2016 1:40:40 PM
From: Jim Mullens
   of 161082
 
Jeffrey, re: chipset level royalties...................................

Weren't those relating to the video compression standard?


>>>>>>>>>>>


I was thinking of the patents BRCM bought ($29 M?) from an obscure company that related to wireless transmission from an car rental terminal device.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jim Mullens who wrote (131823)7/15/2016 1:45:00 PM
From: JeffreyHF
   of 161082
 
Intermec?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: gutboy097/15/2016 2:39:35 PM
   of 161082
 
Apple's iPhone 7 Could Flip Qualcomm's Likely Five-Quarter Slump

ALLISON GATLIN8:05 AM ET

No. 1 fabless chipmaker Qualcomm ( QCOM) is expected to print a fifth consecutive quarter of declines when it reports June-quarter earnings after the close Wednesday, but the Apple ( AAPL) supplier will hit the black again in September on the iPhone 7, analysts say.

Qualcomm stock is up nearly 10% this year, outperforming IBD's 41-company Electronic Semiconductor-Fabless industry group which has gained 7.6%. Shares are forming a flat base, with a possible 56.37 buy point. Shares rose above their 50-day moving average on July 8 and remain above that key support line.

IBD's TAKE: Qualcomm, with an IBD Composite Rating of 43 and Relative Strength Rating of 44, is not a highly rated stock. But another fabless chipmaker, Broadcom, has a highest-possible CR of 99 and an RS of 81, and it might be worth more of your time because it also is among companies working on what look to be sound bases.

For its fiscal Q3 ended June 26, Qualcomm is expected to report $5.58 billion in sales ex items and 97 cents earnings per share minus items, down 4% and 2%, respectively, vs. the year-earlier quarter, according to the consensus of analysts polled by Thomson Reuters.

In March, Qualcomm guided to $5.2 billion to $6 billion in sales and 90 cents to $1 EPS minus items for the quarter. Both sales and EPS have declined by double digits, year over year, for the previous four quarters. But Qualcomm has topped views the past three periods.

Fiscal Q4 ending Sept. 25 could signal a return to the black. For that quarter, Qualcomm is expected to report $5.74 billion in sales minus items and $1.09 EPS ex items, up a respective 5% and 20%.

In a challenge for Qualcomm, Apple is rumored to have tapped Intel ( INTC) to source some of its iPhone 7 modems. Qualcomm is the incumbent supplier and Intel hasn't supplied for an iPhone since the 3G iteration in 2008.

Intel's IBD Composite Rating of 81 -- meaning it's performed in the top 20% of its group in earnings and sales growth, and other key metrics -- is stronger than Qualcomm's 43 CR.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: JeffreyHF who wrote (131824)7/15/2016 4:03:37 PM
From: Jim Mullens
1 Recommendation   of 161082
 
Jeffrey, re: chipset level royalties / BRCM v QCOM - Intermec

Yup, that’s it.

An SI search found this 2007 post of my trial observations.

OK, I see this case was not centered on chipset level royalties but on individual patents and claims within patents. And, BRCM’s patent valuation expert witness valued just that one “010” patent at 1.4% of the devices ASP.

Hopefully QCOM can convince the Korean authorities, as it did the Chinese, of the fallacies of not using the device’s ASP as the royalty basis.

>>>>>>>>

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=23594044&srchtxt=intermec

Snip>>>

8. The $595/ hr patent valuation expert estimated the value of the “010” patent infringement at $5,117,417 thru March 2007. I did not hear the complete cross exam by QCOM, but I don’t understand how he supported his case since a QChat phone has never been commercially sold to date (and isn’t expected until sometime in 2008). He came up with a royalty rate of 1.4% of the device ASP payable to BRCM.

Note, the total award recommended by the expert was $29,477,359 , with the jury coming in at $19.6 million with not detail provided as the amount per patent.

I found it interesting that his studies supported a “starting point” royalty rate calculation at 5% of the device ASP, and he added and subtracted from the point in determining the final rate based on many considerations.

Also, he briefly flashed a detailed chart of royalty rates on the LCD screens which was quickly removed as it was pointed out that this was confidential info and those w/o clearance (including me) were asked to leave the courtroom.

It’s hard for me to believe that this obscure patent that never resulted in any product / prototype from an obscure (and deceased) company that never produced anything resembling the complexity of even a 1st generation cell phone could be worth 1.4% of the phones ASP against the Q’s (and the industries) 1,000 of patents (many essential) that values its IPR at less than 5% of the phones ASP.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: badger3 who wrote (131822)7/15/2016 4:59:45 PM
From: sag
6 Recommendations   of 161082
 
Paul, like father like son. High road hasn't worked well for shareholders post 1999. To be anti Trump is pro Hillary. She has never taken the high road. Paul has ignored the sixty billion dollar decline(low of forties)to present. We,as long term shareholders either have huge rewards ahead or we have been had by the hoodoman! SM is a warrior the Jacobs are not.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: sag who wrote (131827)7/15/2016 5:22:36 PM
From: SirWalterRalegh
1 Recommendation   of 161082
 
To be anti Trump is pro Hillary.

This infers (see Comey) the the Jacobs prefer the policies of Obama and potential nominee Clinton.
Maybe the Jacobs believe Obama/Clinton will bring advantage to QUALCOMM.

I don't believe the Obama administration has stood up to the Chinese stealing intellectual property
from many US Corporations.

Both Jacobs are probably near BILLIONAIRES.

The support by this group is more than just "anti Trump".

My opinion is they are happy with things as they stand in this Country.

Our Congress, both sides are of the same opinion.

ALL of them are on the gravy train and as happy as a pig in S***.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: SirWalterRalegh who wrote (131828)7/15/2016 5:43:21 PM
From: sag
   of 161082
 
No doubt about it! Irwin has hosted multiple fund raisers at his modest SD home(probably hid the Ferrari which he was unable to navigate!!!!!), Their high road support of Obama did not help us in China, did not help us in Korea. Connect the dots! QCOM has been under attack since I first purchased their shares, 1992 or 91. I feel horrible for shareholders post 99. SM is a warrior!!!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: slacker7117/15/2016 5:48:44 PM
7 Recommendations   of 161082
 
Take it ELSEWHERE.

Last warning, any further political posts will earn bans.

Slacker

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10