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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (50730)	3/2/2006 8:12:14 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197031

does all the posts on brcm accomplish anything without investors from brcm to reply. it seems to me we are talking to ourselves and trying to convince ourselves about the brcm suit. It has been discussed on the thread for a few months now. how much more coverage does it require to come to a conclusion it is nothing and move on to other qcom news. Well, I'd just say that one problem is that there are literally a half dozen different suits going on right now. The merits/importance of each one varies. I'm on record saying that the royalty discount that Qualcomm gives to its chipset customers does seem to violate FRAND principles (though as I said in my previous post, the SDO's should have known about it). At least personally, the reason why I have spent quite a bit of time looking at the various suits is that I expect some decisions in the next several months. In particular, the EU should be ruling on whether to begin an investigation any day now. I had been hoping to get that out of the way prior to Q's earnings update, but we only have a few days until the annual meeting, so I'm not sure if that will happen. Slacker

To: John Carragher who wrote (50730)	3/2/2006 8:43:54 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197031

does all the posts on brcm accomplish anything without investors from brcm to reply. There is some truth to this in that a debate is more valuable than running through it yourself. BUT beyond that it seems pretty odd to say hey, who needs due dilligence. Lets just throw our money to Q and hope for the best. If we (slacker in this case) weren't finding new data, and we were just mulling over the same facts I might agree with you. But we are not. We're looking at and discussing a lower level of detail.

To: John Carragher who wrote (50730)	3/2/2006 12:34:02 PM
From: matherandlowell	Respond to of 197031

"does all the posts on brcm accomplish anything without investors from brcm to reply" Qualcomm's arguments to dismiss the monopoly claims are some of the most interesting and important ideas I have read here. I look forward to reading Qualcomm's briefs from the various other cases on the newly established Yahoo thread (courtesy of Slacker). These arguments are much more important than the latest handset estimates, which are indeed important on some level. I would like to thank in advance anyone who has the aptitude to find and post the briefs on the patent infringement claims. j.