Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (129329)	5/27/2003 12:56:24 PM
From: qveauriche	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

As a lawyer, I know that a press release is not a contract. Even though I am not a securities lawyer, my common sense tells me that joint press releases on contracts between publicly traded companies cannot be misleading; nor can they be literally true but give rise to false impressions based on the omission of the relevant countervailing facts without the companies involved facing potentially severe civil, administrative, and perhaps even criminal sanctions. Complex cross-licensing agreements can run as much as 100 pages plus, with perhaps only a couple of those pages (or a single exhibit) devoted to spelling out the royalty amount. When two companies jointly announce a licensing agreement and state that, "As part of the agreement..." one side will receive royalties without referencing any royalty to be paid to the other side, the reasonable inference the investing public is invited to make from that press release is that QCOM gets royalties and Nokia doesn't. And to further conclude that the reference to "As part of the agreement.." means "As part of the overall agreement", and not that there is a further part in the royalty provision itself alleviating or offsetting the royalties to QCOM. Wouldn't you agree?