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 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

Recommended by:

JeffreyHF

VinnieBagOfDonuts

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (146589)	5/28/2018 5:39:43 PM
From: sbfm	2 Recommendations of 196546

I think the concept of pleading in the alternative (i.e., alternate theory and inconsistent facts) is prospective. That is, when a lawsuit is filed many times the plaintiff simply doesnt have all the facts - just enough to feel wronged you might say. Discovery during the case will promote some legal theory of recovery over an inconsistent one. And the plaintiff can go before a jury and let the finder of fact (jury or judge) decide (e.g., a contract case can ask for damages or rescission - in this case, plaintiff MUST choose one remedy but cant have both. Pleading alternative theories is not a fraud on the court- ultimately plaintiff (or a defendant for affirmative defenses) is left with whatever the facts support. Judicial Estoppel is designed to prevent a fraud being perpetrated on the court system. JE is also narrowly applied because ONLY the judicial system's desire for consistent justice is involved. (E.G., Apple seeking device level royalties when its a plaintiff, doesnt impact Q when Apple is the defendant; but does make consistent application of the law impossible for the courts.) Here is an illustration: Samsung and Apple and Q and Apple have separate cases before the same court. Apple argues device in one and component in another. Wins both. What is the law? Our system of justice requires that the same result be reached in cases where there are the same facts and the same law; otherwise the law is random and anarchy results. As someone pointed out, JE could be avoided if, e.g., there is a difference between types of patents. I think Q has a great argument, but just haven't focussed on the details yet.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next