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: Maurice Winn who wrote (54808)	8/29/2006 12:58:57 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 196393

Nokia also contends that it would not have invested heavily . . . Maurice and all, the use of the conditional "would" is simply conjecture and has no value in a legal statement. Either Nokia did invest, or they did not invest. If they did invest, then the assumption must be they knew what they were doing, unless they can now prove fraud, with the burden of proof on Nokia. A lot of litigants try to use the word "would" to cover up their real behavior. For example, "I would never have done such and such. . ." Which is to say, we can't know because we can't prove or disprove what they "would" have done. When you see that kind of terminology in a legal document, whether a motion, memo of law, affirmation, or whatever, then you know the author of that terminology is in trouble. The question remains why Nokia put itself in that position (not "would have put itself"). I can only surmise that the real intent is to create FUD and noise in the hope that QCOM, out of frustration or fear, might cave in a little and give Nokia something it definitely doesn't deserve--even waive QCOM's right to recovery of damages for Nokia's illegal use of QCOM IPR in GSM handsets. QUALCOMM has always had good quality legal counsel, as shown especially in the QCOM answering papers. The QCOM position is strong and likely to produce significant damage to Nokia, no matter how the various actions turn out. Would it be prudent for an investor to short Nokia stock? Not, in my view, on the basis of impending litigation, but rather, on the basis that this is not a good time for investors worldwide, given the political turmoil and the potential impact of a failing U.S. economy. So a short sale of Nokia might in fact be a reasonable investment strategy, provided that an investor has a need to hedge the overall market. And yet, while that might be an interesting and profitable strategy, there might be better potential shorts (e.g., U.S. auto stocks?). Art