Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 159.42

-1.2%

Jan 16 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (53997)	7/29/2006 5:03:41 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 197254

If you really cannot find anything more pleasant to do, like sorting your socks, you might wish to look at the public parts of the ITC BRCM vs. QCOM spat docket [no. 337-543]. Click into the "intelligent search" button, then insert 337-543 as the search term. searchapp.usitc.gov I look at the public documents to see if I can tease out any meaning out of them. I can't say that I can on this one, though I was disappointed to see that Q's lawyers lost a chance at a summary adjudication on one of the claims by missing a deadline. Not necessarily a big deal, but if Q is paying its lawyers upwards of $500-750 an hour, that should never happen.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next