Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 170.90

-1.3%

Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: slacker711 who wrote (145867)	10/24/2006 6:18:09 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Very interesting ruling. It relates something I don't think was public knowledge, namely, that the arbitrator had already found the dispute was subject to arbitration. How the case is in the hands of an arbitrator, I don't know. But this judge's ruling is very interesting as he says that the arbitrability of the estoppel defense is not based on any evidence, but merely on attorney argument. Because it is a limitation on a right to use the courts, the intention to arbitrate has to be made very clear and has to be proven by "clear and convincing evidence," a standard Nokia didn't meet. Well, this is very good news. We may have the ITC issuing a judgment of interference. I'll be very surprised if Q wins an injunction, but you never know. It is also going to be influential in Judge Rudi's [SD case] analysis of arbitrability. I suspect that the UK court will be ruling on arbitrability soon. We may have four findings on arbitrability before it is all said and done--those by the SD Federal court, the UK court, the arbitrator, and this one by the ITC. Lawyers are making a bloody fortune.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next