(Operator Instructions) Welcome to the Qualcomm Second Quarter Fiscal 2009 Conference Call. I would now like to turn the call over to John Gilbert, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Today's call will include prepared remarks by Dr. Paul Jacobs, Don Rosenberg, Steve Mollenkopf and Bill Keitel. In addition, Steve Altman and Derek Aberle will join the question and answer session. An internet presentation and audio broadcast accompany this call, and you can access it by visiting www.Qualcomm.com. During this conference call, if we use any non-GAAP financial measures as defined by the SEC and Regulation G, you can find the required reconciliations to GAAP on our website. I would also direct you to our earnings release which were filed and furnished respectively with the SEC today and are available on our website. We may make forward looking statements relating to our expectations and other future events that may differ materially from Qualcomm's actual results. Please review our SEC filings for a detailed presentation of each of our businesses and associated risks and other important factors that may cause our actual results to differ from these forward looking statements. It’s my pleasure to introduce Qualcomm’s CEO, Dr. Paul Jacobs

Let me begin by saying I’m very pleased with our strong operating performance given the current economic environment. Our revenues were at the high end of our prior guidance and our pro-forma combined SG&A and R&D expenses were lower then our prior guidance. Excluding the impact of the new Broadcom agreement, our operating income significantly exceeded our prior guidance and interestingly our operating cash flow was $1.3 billion up 33% year over year. Worldwide demand for 3G enabled products and services remains strong and we continue to see healthy growth in CDMA devise shipments as well as significantly increased demand for our chipsets. Thus we are raising our fiscal 2009 revenue guidance. Important to note that excluding the impact from the Broadcom agreement, our midpoint operating income estimates for the fiscal year 2009 increased 12% from prior guidance. You’ve seen from our announcement we have reached settlement and multi-year patent agreement with Broadcom that removes uncertainty and enables the industry to move forward. We believe the agreement is positive for Qualcomm, our customers, our partners, wireless operators, and the overall industry. The agreement provides both companies the ability to move forward with their core businesses unencumbered and allows Qualcomm’s licensing business to continue unaffected which has always been of utmost importance to us. With the elimination of conflict between the companies we can now direct our full attention and resources to continuing to innovate, improving our competitive position and growing demand for wireless products and services. Later in this call Don Rosenberg will provide more detail on the structure of the agreement and Bill Keitel will address the financial impact. Despite the global economic environment our business continues to generate strong operating cash flows which enabled us to return capital to our stockholders. In view of this performance, our Board…

Qualcomm has been open to finding a mutually acceptable agreement with Broadcom for quite some time, as long as it did not negatively impact our business model. Both companies worked hard to find common ground to get this deal done in a way that allows both companies to continue to pursue each respective of the business model. The agreement involved various gives and takes by both companies. I’ll walk you through some of the key aspects of the agreement. Under this multi-year patent agreement, the companies have granted certain rights to each other under their respective patent portfolios. The agreement does not, however, impact Qualcomm’s 3G and 4G licensing business. Qualcomm and Broadcom have agreed not to assert patents against each other for their respective integrated circuit products and certain other products and services. Broadcom has agreed not to assert its patents against our customers for our integrated circuit products incorporated into cellular products. We have agreed not to assert our patents against Broadcom’s customers for Broadcom’s integrated circuit products incorporated in non-cellular products. Broadcom customers do not receive rights to any of our patents with respect to Broadcom integrated circuit products incorporated into cellular products and equipment. In other words, Qualcomm did not grant pass through rights to Broadcom. The agreement will result in the dismissal of all outstanding litigation between the companies including the patent infringement claims made in the International Trade Commission and US District Court in Santa Ana, anti trust claims in US District Court in San Diego, as well as the withdrawal by Broadcom of its complaints to the European commission and the Korean fair trade commission. Qualcomm will pay to Broadcom a total of $891 million in cash over a four year period of which $200 million will be paid in the quarter ending…

QCT continues to execute well in this challenging economic environment and I would like to share our highlights. We shipped approximately 69 million MSMs during the second quarter of 2009 exceeding our previous guidance. This is an increase of approximately 10% quarter over quarter. Multiple factors continued to this increase in shipment including acceleration of 3G deployment in China, demand for USB mobile broadband devices and a stabilization of inventory levels across the channel. We expect these positive trends to continue and anticipate shipments in the range of 87 to 92 million MSMs for the June quarter. As expected, we saw a greater mix of products ship to emerging markets which impacted our ASP. We expect this trend to continue as handset demand in China and India accelerates. Longer term, we believe the migration to wireless data services in both developed and emerging markets will have a positive impact on our product mix. This past quarter we shipped a record number of CSM channels, nearly double the previous quarter, driven by network deployments in China and emerging markets. As one leading indicator of future handset demand, this trend bodes well for shipments across all tiers of CDMA 2000 devices as we see that the infrastructure being deployed today is capable of EV-DO Revision A. Also during the quarter we announced the industries first multi-mode 3G LTE Smart Phone chipset. The MSM 8960 delivers support for EV-DO Revision B multi-carrier HSPA plus and LTE along with an evolved version of the processor and Snapdragon running up to 1.2 gigahertz. Carriers choosing to deploy LTE will be able to take advantage of the MSM 8960’s multi-mode capabilities to ensure seamless backward compatibility with their existing 3G networks. In fiscal Q2 we also announced a collaboration with Nokia to develop advanced mobile devices…

I’ll begin with a review of our second quarter results. Revenues of $2.5 billion were at the high end of our prior guidance and pro forma operating income was $214 million. Excluding the litigation settlement charge related to the Broadcom agreement, pro forma operating income for the second quarter would have been $962 million, more than $100 million above the high end of our prior guidance. We reported better than expected business performance in multiple areas. The CDMA market was stronger then expected with greater licensee device shipments in Europe and China. QCT also performed significantly better then expected driven by increased chipset shipments for emerging markets. Lastly, our initiatives to reduced spending, particularly SG&A proved very successful. Operating cash flow was also strong in the second quarter, approximately $1.3 billion and 51% of revenue. Our second quarter results include a litigation settlement charge of $741 million related to the new Broadcom agreement and I though it would be helpful to walk you through the accounting of the total $891 million agreement. Included in the $891 million is $38 million for certain assets which will be amortized over future periods. Also included is $60 million accrued in prior periods, as well as $45 million of imputed interest over the four years of payments. The remaining $748 million is for litigation settlement. The $748 million charge reduced second quarter earnings per share by $0.43. We expect the majority of the settlement payments to be made with offshore cash. The combination of pro forma R&D and SG&A expenses were lower this quarter by approximately 3% sequentially and 1% year over year reflecting a number of broad cost savings initiatives. Our pro forma tax rate was 131% in the second fiscal quarter and we estimate our pro forma annual tax rate will be…

Before we go into our question and answer session, I would like to remind our participants that our goal on this call is to address as many questions as possible before we run out of time. I would encourage you to please limit your questions to one per caller. Operator we’re ready for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Brian Modoff - Deutsche Bank

On the shipments for the quarter can you give me a little more granularity around where the demand is coming from? Is this mainly on CDMA and can we look at it on a more region basis. This license renegotiation that you have for the back half of the year, can you give us an update on how that’s going. Last time you’d indicated you were making good progress there, can you please give us some further details on that.

In terms of the quarter we’re reporting on today so Q2, we saw pretty strong demand in China as we said. Looking forward I think we’re seeing demand kind of across the board increasing obviously with our numbers going up by the amount they did. Its pretty broad based demand. I would say we’re continuing to remain strong in China as we said but I think we’re pretty pleased with the outlook right now.

We remain in discussions with the licensee whose extension we’re negotiating. At this point I don’t think we really have much to update versus what we disclosed in the last call. I think we remain on track with that negotiation and continue to expect it will get done in a timeframe that reflects the numbers we have in our guidance.

Can you give us any detail though around this licensee? Do you expect a material change in your previous rate that you had with this licensee?

At this point we’re really not in the position to say much more then we did previously. We’re looking at a number of different terms and conditions in the agreement and I think we mentioned last time that we expect at this point that the extension will include a substantial up front fee component. I think at this point we prefer to just defer really discussions of the details until we get it done.

Your next question comes from Mike Walkley – Piper Jaffray Mike Walkley – Piper Jaffray : Obviously a lot of moving parts with your updated guidance and the Broadcom settlement. Just a couple clarifications, maybe you could help us reconcile your updated guidance as how it would have compared to your previous guidance excluding the Broadcom settlement. Also with the mix of lower CDMA MSMs can you provide the anticipated QTC operating margin target inhered in your updated guidance. Finally, can you help us with the pro forma tax rate for the second half of fiscal ’09?

On the new guidance, if we take out the Broadcom settlement agreement and the charge we took for it, our operating income guidance for the fiscal year is up by a significant amount in the range more than $350 million for the fiscal year. That reflects both the results we’ve been seeing in our cost savings initiatives number one, but as well significant increased uplift in demand on our chipset business. We think that in turn is driven largely by growth in developing world but also the inventory channel seems to be settling down and we’re actually seeing pockets of backfill into that channel. On the tax rate, last quarter we had estimated a 25% pro forma tax rate for the full fiscal year. If you recall, last quarter we had some changes in our deferred tax assets that increased that rate from what we previously had been expecting to be 22% excluding that change for this year’s deferred tax asset accounting we expected last quarter that the year would have otherwise continued at 22%. That’s still the same situation for this quarter. The other ingredient we obviously brought in this quarter was the Broadcom settlement charge. Because we expect to pay Broadcom largely with our offshore cash that magnifies the tax rate impact. Excluding that settlement charge, excluding the valuation, the change in our deferred asset valuation we would still be forecasting 25% for the fiscal year and an underlying rate really of 22%. On the QCT operating margin, I would just say at this point we see it continuing to improve this fiscal year and exiting the year at a rate that is more consistent with what we’ve seen in our past for the chipset business.

Your next question comes from Ehud Gelblum – J.P. Morgan Ehud Gelblum – J.P. Morgan: Now that the Broadcom settlement appears to be complete and you have a global agreement between the two of you, the issue of the agreement that Broadcom made with Verizon some time ago after the 983 case in the ITC seems to be a standout. I know that’s more of a Verizon issue but it seems to be related with you. Was part of the agreement with Broadcom that somehow that Verizon agreement sort of gets reversed because it seems that either Verizon is out roughly $200 million or if you had helped them out at some point you may be out the $200 million in addition? Was that somehow wrapped into this and somehow reversed because that whole agreement seems to be at this point somewhat mute. Could you give us a sense as to how Gobi is doing in the total MSM number that you have? Is it 5% of MSMs, 2% of MSMs, anything that you can give us to get a sense as to how Gobi is growing. On inventories, we’re at 14 weeks, the numbers you gave for guidance very strong 87 to 92 million for next quarter. Do you think that keeps us at 14 weeks, at what point do you think it starts moving you up to 15 weeks or beyond or do you think 14 weeks is something that the industry can actually survive at now?

We can’t talk about details of the agreement which as I said are confidential beyond what we’ve already said in the discussion here.

At this point I think Gobi really is very small number in terms of our overall shipments. In terms of percentage it’s quite small. I think we’ll see that build over the year but in the results that we just came out with its quite small.

On the channel inventory question we think we ended the March quarter at approximately 14 weeks. Our guidance is based on the channel staying at about the 14 week level. We think that’s the most likely case at this point. We have a little ebb and flow in our forecast going forward but its plus or minus a couple tenths of a point in terms of equivalent weeks. Demand obviously is very strong in emerging markets and we think that helped stabilize the inventory channel relative to what we’re seeing in the past. We’re encouraged by this but we think overall OEMs and operators are continuing to be cautious and so we expect it to stay at the 14 week level for the remainder of this calendar year.

Your next question comes from Mark McKechnie – Broadpoint AmTech Mark McKechnie – Broadpoint AmTech: On the chips we’re talking about a pretty big June, three questions related to your chip business. One is you were talking about stability in your chip business. I’m guessing that’s just no more inventory burn so it’s a little easier to see. If you could tell us what your visibility there is going into the quarter on those numbers. Is that fully booked or is there any turns related to that. Second, with those strong numbers are you seeing any other industry components tightening up that could cause a problem in the ramp. It sounds like a crazy question. Finally, anything you can tell us on your share in the WCMDA space and maybe when you see Nokia kicking in.

In terms of visibility into the quarter I think we’re pretty confident in the number that we gave just a few minutes ago. As you’re probably aware, with the new market ramping like China I think there is some time for it to kind of get to the same maturity in terms of sophistication of the ordering and the marketing. We’ve actually judged down the demand in order to get to the numbers that we reported. We feel pretty good about those numbers. With regards to other groups affecting our ability to ramp there’s really not a whole lot I can comment on that. I think we’re aware of what happened a couple years ago or at least a year and a half ago with regards to some of the components. I’m not aware of a situation like that right now but it’s hard for me to kind of talk about the entire phone. In terms of share for WCDMA I think we really don’t try to give out our share numbers. I think we’re encouraged by some of the reports that OEMs that traditionally use our devices are continuing to be strong. I think at this point it’s a bit too early for us to make any prediction with regards to Nokia.

Your next question comes from Matthew Hoffman – Cowen & Company Matthew Hoffman – Cowen & Company: Most of your customers have talked about the market being flat to up here in the June quarter. Is the guidance really a read through into the back half of the year and Chinese OEMs especially getting optimistic about calendar 3Q and 4Q or is this really just a restocking phenomenon going on with very little read through in improved demand outside of China.

There are a couple factors, one is as Bill said, there are pockets of restocking. Certainly I think that’s happening with the launch of 3G in China both WCDMA and CDMA 2000. As I said, we’ve actually in giving our guidance, we’ve actually judged our demand down so that we can take into account I think the initial ramp up of 3G in China. I think we’re reasonably confident in the number that we see. In terms of end market demand I think we’re keeping our midpoint the same. We’re shifting, as Bill said, shifting the ratio of WCDMA to CDMA but I don’t think there’s a significant shift there.

I would add to what Steve said that reaffirming our guidance here for that end market forecast of 540 to 590 million units there was a lot of work put on to that this quarter and we’re really pleased to continue to see the market growing at that the midpoint being about 565 million units. I think that equates to about an 18% year over year growth in units. Here we are three months later and we’re feeling even better about that end market forecast.

Your next question comes from Tim Luke – Barclays Capital Tim Luke – Barclays Capital: You referred in your remarks to the 467 case that was coming up. Could you just remind us what related to and provide any other color on why you felt that that prompted some urgency around the settlement. More broadly, in terms of the licensing in prior periods in doing licensing deals you had received payments from others for your IP. What do you feel was so different that beyond settling the patent disputes that were outstanding relative to other licensing deals that Qualcomm has done this was one where you were paying out almost $900 million, and what were the key goals that you sense that you were achieving in terms of access to assets of Broadcom? With respect to the broader WCDMA market it looks as if it was somewhat slower first calendar quarter seasonally at 187 but you anticipate still pretty good ramp in the second half. Could you just talk about some of the seasonality elements there?

The 467 case had involved several patents one of which you may recall 686 we ultimately got dismissed. The particular patent that I was referring to here was a patent that affected our EV-DO chip. I want to clarify as I said there were many factors this is one of them. This is not, as I think you said, some urgency. This was a factor in our thinking and what motivated us to continue to try to resolve these differences. What had happened there we have had an injunction as you recall. We’ve had some rulings from the Court which we were concerned seemed to be broadening, the effect of that injunction and so that was one of the elements that we considered as we discussed this settlement.

You asked about the fact that we paid money here. It’s true that in the past we’ve also made some purchases of rights for intellectual property bought IP and so forth. That’s part of our goal to provide as much coverage as we can and to eliminate concerns in the industry about things like royalty stacking and so forth. I would say in this particular settlement obviously the key goals were to maintain the business model. We very much wanted to eliminate the distraction that was having on management and also on the engineers that were focused on designing work arounds and so forth we wanted to get them much more focused on continuing to innovate. As Don said, we very much wanted to avoid any potential expansion of the injunction and we wanted to make sure that our customers in the industry were unfettered to move forward. It was really important to us to make sure that our chip customers and the wireless operators businesses would not be impacted by further litigation and that was always a possibility that things would go the other direction. I think there were just a number of things that led us to decide that this was the right thing to do. We had been in discussions with them on and off over a fairly long period of time. Finally we were able to get to a solution that worked.

As you know, more than 90% of our licensing revenue comes from royalties on handsets and we the royalties from suppliers are very minimal part of our program. That might help answer one of the questions you had. We are very comfortable and confident that the deal we structured with Broadcom will continue to allow us to collect royalties on the devices that generate most of our revenue including ones that incorporate Broadcom components.

Your next question comes from Maynard Um – UBS Maynard Um – UBS : There’s been some press recently about chipset shortages from Qualcomm. Can you talk about the shortages you’re seeing; when you think you might be able to resolve those? Then if you could just clarify your comments on the Broadcom OpEx savings based on your previous comments, presumably maybe around $50 to $75 million a year is that ballpark? Lastly, can you talk about now that the Broadcom resolution is done and some of the other guys who are being kind of the key proponents of the anti-trust reviews and Europe and Korea and Japan how that might change the situation now that you have this resolution.

Anytime you get a situation like we have now where you’re ramping very rapidly coming out of this correction that we had in the first half, you do put a lot of pressure on the supply chain and I think we’ve seen some small amount of cases where we’ve had to push out some orders. I think that’s really very small thing at the moment and in fact we wouldn’t anticipate that to be something that would exist beyond the quarter that we’re in.

With respect to the question you asked about the regulatory bodies. As we’ve announced, Broadcom has agreed to withdraw its compliant to both the European Commission and the Korean Fair Trade Commission. Of course those bodies are not bound to stop any investigation they can certainly continue their investigation. What we hope is that they will factor into their deliberations the fact that we’ve now settled with two companies, two of the primary complainants both of whom have agreed to withdraw their complaints. We think that reflects a lot, including the fact that as we’ve often said, these were commercial disputes and commercial disputes are best resolved between the parties. We’ve demonstrated that that can be done and we’re hopeful that that will be a factor in the considerations in all the competition authorities who have been looking at this.

On the operating expenses in the schedules provided on the website you’ll see a little reconciliation for operating income and its shows the net of the Broadcom charge in the second quarter was approximately $700 million versus the $748 number that I spoke to. There’s some rounding in that number but the major component that rounds it down to approximately $700 million is an expectation of lower operating expenses related to our outside legal fees. Having said that, just recall that as Don did say, there will be some amount of wind down in our third fiscal quarter and so the full effect really doesn’t come about until the fourth fiscal quarter. With the closure of this case our outside legal fees going out of the year for these more extraordinary cases we expect to be quite minimal.

Your next question comes from Tal Liani – Bank of America Tal Liani – Bank of America: Just a clarification, when you say $48 million for legal expenses and given your just last comment, I assume that on an annual basis its about $120 million or $110 million, the $48 million is just between now and year end so we need to annualize it if you can clarify this. Second, about these charges, is the decline already built into your expectations or not into your guidance or not? Third, where should we account for it, is it going to be a part of the operating margin of licensing or semi’s. Going forward this is a bigger question; going forward can you speak about actually the leverage in licensing once you pass this Broadcom charge decline. How will gross margin or operating margin in licensing could look like? What are the puts and takes in this margin level?

The charge this quarter related to Broadcom settlement is $748 million and the reconciliation schedules provided on our website it rounds down to $700 million and I said the major ingredient that rounds it down to $700 million is a reduction in forecast of our legal expenses. Only a partial effect in our third fiscal quarter, a full quarter effect in our fourth fiscal quarter. Going out of this fiscal 2009 the extraordinary outside legal fees we’ve been incurring here for the last few years we expect to be at a fairly minimal level. That is incorporated into the operating and expense guidance we just gave here this morning. The accounting of the charge, the settlement charge has its own line item on the P&L so that one stands out pretty clearly. From a segment basis it’s included in the reconciling items, it’s not included in the QTL or QCT segment. For the ongoing expenses outside the $748 million that level will be fairly small about $6 million per quarter and the bulk of that is in other interest and expense, other income representing the imputed interest on the forward payments we’ll be making. In terms of leverage and licensing, our outside legal fees we’ve carefully in the past allocated those largely between the chipset business and the licensing business. You’ve been seeing some leverage come through as those expenses have been coming down a bit and we’ll see a little bit more here in the coming quarters. I’m not going to comment or give specific guidance on our gross margins here for the licensing business but going out of this year we’ll have a little bit of improvement certainly relative to the third fiscal quarter.

Your next question comes from Brett Simpson – Arete Research Brett Simpson – Arete Research: Can you talk a little bit about the demand uplift you’re seeing today for USB or modules where it’s more prevalent and whether it’s been boosted by China already. I’m also interested maybe from a licensing perspective whether there’s a difference between the royalties you collect for modules and from USB whether one is coming from a percentage of royalties and another coming from absolute dollar amount. Second question, from a licensing perspective you agreement with EMP now its folding into a new joint venture with SD Micro does that change the licenses, or is there a renegotiation that needs to take place there. There’s also some talk about MediaTeck acquiring a chip license from you guys. I’m interested in what sort of rights these guys need and whether that drives an incremental licensing revenue from your perspective.

For the quarter that we just reported on we had a pretty strong numbers with regards to USB both CDMA and WCDMA or HSP or HSUPA USB data devices. Then moving forward we continue to see that demand accelerate. It’s obviously happening in China but we also see strong USB demand in the developing world in particular Europe as well. That continues to be a high spot for the chip business.

On modules it’s probably not a straightforward answer. There are a variety of terms that apply to our modules and they differ from product to product. In some cases we do collect a royalty on the end user consumer modules much like we do on the handset where it’s a percentage of the selling price. For embedded modules we have somewhat different terms where we have minimum royalties and things like that built in and we’ve done some unique things to address the notebook space. I think its kind of a number of different terms depending on the kind of module. Your question on EMP I think we’ve said historically we don’t have an agreement in place today that covers the EMP chip sales. I don’t see really a difference going forward to the extent there’s a combination through the JV.

Your next question comes from James Faucette - Pacific Crest

I wanted to the timing of demand as its progressed during the course of the March quarter and the early part here of the June quarter. First of all from a chipset perspective obviously your outlook for the June quarter and even what you shipped in the March quarter was a bit better then you’d anticipated back in January, can you talk a little bit about how that progressed and brought us to the point we are. Similarly for end market demand, can you talk about how in the first quarter units compared to your initial forecast even though you’re not changing the full year and maybe how you saw that shifting taking place? Finally, on the settlement with Broadcom when you talked about non-cellular products I’m hoping to get a little bit of clarification about how we should think about those whether that are any products that do not have any type of cellular, wireless connectivity or should we be thinking about these products, these once that traditionally would not have been considered cellular but in the future may have those. I’m trying to get a better handle on whether we should be thinking about notebooks and wireless connected PMDs etc. as non-cellular products or cellular products.

If you look at the first half pretty much unfolded the way that we thought it would unfold with the exception of we did have some surprises, pleasant surprises with regards to increased demand in China. In terms of how the demand started to look over the quarter for the June quarter, we’ve continued to see increases week over week trying to be careful in terms of how we interpret those increases. I think particularly with such a large component coming from a new carrier or a new region ramping we’ve been pretty interested in making sure the demand is real and so we spend a lot of time trying to vet that. We’ve seen sort of increased demand kind of week over week and trying to make sure that we validate that.

On the end market, this quarter that we just reported here came in stronger. Those of course were shipments that occurred in the December quarter and we recognized the royalties one quarter in arrears. We saw better strength then expected for both the China market and the European market. European market we think was more module based for data modems. Looking forward, our forecast for the June quarter on the end market we expect some ebbing coming off the Christmas season as is normal. Then going into the June quarter of course that June quarter and end market would be September quarter for our licensing business revenues. We’re looking for a healthy up tick probably at a rate greater then we’ve seen in the last few quarters and then continuing on into the December quarter as well.

As Don pointed out, the agreement includes broad based protection between the companies and then more specific set of rights to the customers. When we speak about cellular Qualcomm did not grant any rights to Broadcom’s customers with respect to any products that include cellular interfaces so that would include things like mids and notebooks and netbooks. The reverse is also true that to the extent we sell chips into those types of products we would receive rights under Broadcom’s patents for our customers.

Your next question comes from Adam Benjamin – Jefferies Adam Benjamin – Jefferies: Clearly China is driving significant upside in the quarter. Can you talk a little bit about the manufacturing is difficult to get a sense of where the exact volumes are but can you talk about domestic China as a percentage of your unit volume and break that out just roughly for us.

We don’t break out China specifically any more. As we mentioned I think it was last quarter, we’re a little concerned that we don’t want to be, there’s one CDMA 2000 carrier today and one WCDMA carrier in China and we don’t want to be publicly disagreeing with their forecasts. We don’t break those out like we had in the past. We’re seeing a good uplift in China for both CDMA 2000 and WCDMA. We see this at a growing trend whereas Steve said we’re being a little cautious there as new operator launches historically have been one of the more difficult areas for us to forecast accurately. That aside, we’re pretty optimistic on continued growth in the China market for both CDMA 2000 and WCDMA.

We have reached the end of the allotted time for questions and answers today. Dr. Jacobs do you have any final comments you’d like to make?

Thanks everybody for joining us. I have to say, despite what the EPS says I think we had a strong quarter as evidenced by the operating cash flow. We’re feeling more comfortable looking forward. Obviously getting the settlement with Broadcom behind us really eliminates a lot of distraction and makes things I think a lot better for the industry. I really want to thank the teams that worked extremely, extremely hard on getting this deal done. We’re happy to see the chip demand up. We’re happy to see the inventory stabilizing, reaffirming the devise demand. We have very strong operating cash flow as I said, very strong balance sheet. We’re also I think doing a good job on holding down operating expenses while we’re still making investments on the R&D side. I think we have the right products and technologies for today. I think you’ll see over the next year that we have some very exciting initiatives underway. Thanks everybody and we’ll look forward to talking to you again soon.

This does conclude the Qualcomm Second Quarter Fiscal 2009 Conference Call. We’d like to thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.