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: Jim Mullens who wrote (144499)	8/25/2006 5:25:25 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"Appreciate your chiming in with the ’05 date of such ETSI changes (which for some reason got lost in the debate) which was a very helpful addition to this interesting discussion." Yes, if the discussion here wants to focus on the ETSI & the duty Q may have been under w/respect to the policy, then one must look to the date on which the policy was endorsed & the duty arose. It does seem, however, that Q had given ample notice to NOK prior to endorsement of the revisions to the ETSI policy. So, IMHO, focus on this lauguage is extrinsic to the debate. Dunno how many of u here have legal backgrounds, but one has to always consider the date of any document, where it pertain to fact or law.