SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: idler who wrote (853)8/15/1999 2:48:00 AM
From: JGoren  Respond to of 13582
 
I would assume the contracts are not attached to pleadings; there is no reference to their being attached in the one pleadin I have seen. They will certainly be kept sealed or at least expurgated as to the actual licensing rates, and there will probably be protective orders to make sure that they are only used for the lawsuit and not revealed except to expert witnesses. One of the purposes of the MOT counterclaim is to try to get as much information as possible about all deals with other licensees and to place Qcom under pressure as to the revelation of its contracts. Since the case will probably never be tried, I doubt that we shall ever see the whole contracts.



To: idler who wrote (853)8/15/1999 8:16:00 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13582
 
idler, that is really what I'm scratching my head about. It seems to make no sense saying MOT is in the wrong if we don't know what the contract says. I hope Q is right, and given their track record in the legal arena, there is probably some basis for confidence. Ironically, I think there has been more substantive discussion of this issue on the Yahoo QCOM board lately. In particular, "ferspag" is good.
Regards, Greg