To: Jim Mullens who wrote (143219 ) 7/3/2006 4:59:12 PM From: carranza2 Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 152472 C2 (if still at home / surfing the net) as and attorney, I’d be interested in your thoughts as to how much info the Q can / should publicly disclose in a FAQ type forum to support its investors during the next nine months of “rocky road- Rich B” without harming its various upcoming legal cases? I tell my clients in cases which have potential for publicity--not that many have--that it's hard to put your foot in your mouth when your mouth is closed. There are at least two levels of reality here. The first is the PR world in which the protagonists make whatever public announcement they feel like making. I think that this level of reality is pretty much worthless in the current game of 3D chess which is being played out in front of our eyes. I suppose there are things which can be teased out of the few substantive PRs which appear and the few legal memos which make it past confidentiality orders, but those are few and far between. Mixed in among them is a lot of garbage like the famous Nokia PRs a few years ago in which it stated that it had all the IPR it needed for WCDMA until, of course, it signed up for a WCDMA license. The second level of reality is one we don't see. It is the real deal, one in which talks take place, feints are made, negotiations undertaken. We don't have a clue as to what transpires in that substantive level. As very interested amateurs, we see hints of the second level of reality, but not the entire thing. This of course is frustrating. Formal guidance is the best thing to watch, IMO, along with the comments of the knowledgeable. Thus far, Q has been very forthright in its formal announcements concerning the future. This is what I mainly look at.