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 174.23

-0.6%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: kech who wrote (60740)	3/3/2007 6:43:02 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) of 197014

Do you think it is Intel's interest that Sprint detail all of the terms of the "partnership"? No it is not. Intel wants it to seem like Sprint did due diligence and made this strictly on the terms of the technology - just as you seem to think. You can use a silent conspiracy to explain anything and of course, they are impossible to disprove. That is the beauty of them, you can always find a reason for why Qualcomm might have lost. There are some posts upstream that blame Q's legal losses on an incompetent/corrupt judge and the fact that the jury might have been bribed. Personally, I think subscribing to such theories when evaluating companies is a recipe for financial disaster....but to each his own. Slacker

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next