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: slacker711 who wrote (54886)	9/1/2006 7:30:45 AM
From: hedgefund	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196972

This may simply be a public relations "face-saver" or a sign of desperation. The best chance Broadcom had was their anti-trust claims. Fraud and breach of contract seem a bit attenuated given the number of licenses Qualcomm has issued. If Qualcomm refused to offer Broadcom a deal, Broadcom might have had some basis for common law complaints, such as a third party beneficiary contract action, i.e, that Qualcomm's FRAND promises to the standard setting body was a promise made for the benefit of others such as Broadcom. But since that is not the case, I wouldn't invest in Broadcom based on any hope that it could prevail on its common law claims. Broadcom was hoping to survive the motion to dismiss in order to force Qualcomm into making a better deal. It may well be that Broadcom understood it could never win on the merits but that if it could survive the motion to dismiss, it would gain bargaining leverage....I think this gambit failed.

To: slacker711 who wrote (54886)	9/1/2006 7:40:32 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Respond to of 196972

Re: What Broadcom May Do What Broadcom SHOULD do is stop the bellicose rhetoric, and try to use whatever leverage is left, to cut the best deal they can, and get on with the business of doing business.The fact is that David Boies, famed Microsoft antagonist, had his bottom handed to him by an astute Federal Judge, who rejected summarily Boies` most aggressive an imaginative legal theories. The Court was compelled to assume all of Boies` well-plead original and amended allegations as true for the purposes of Qualcomm`s Motion For Summary Judgment, yet not even one theory or claim withstood legal scrutiny. Broadcomm can spin it any way they want, and while being carried out on a stretcher by EMS vow to appeal, but they unquestionably suffered an unmitigated drubbing.When Microsoft was dragged before the EU, Korea, and elsewhere for penance, they had already lost similar cases in the U.S. Qualcomm`s plight just became distinguishable. Congratulations to their legal team, a strong Federal Judge in New Jersey (a venue strategically selected by Broadcom),our legal system,all Qualcomm employees and shareholders, and to proponents of innovation everywhere.

To: slacker711 who wrote (54886)	9/1/2006 8:52:42 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196972

And good luck to BRCM if it pursues the FRAND claim on a fraud basis. Fraud typically has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a legal standard which is a close relative of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal law. In other words, a tough thing to do under the circumstances.

To: slacker711 who wrote (54886)	9/1/2006 10:08:44 AM
From: engineer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196972

do they make these names up? David Dull.....

To: slacker711 who wrote (54886)	9/1/2006 11:47:40 AM
From: DanD	Respond to of 196972

"Qualcomm should take little comfort in the court's decision," said David A. Dull, Broadcom's Sr. Vice President, Business Affairs, and General Counsel. "The decision does not find that Qualcomm's alleged misconduct was lawful or that Qualcomm honored its promises to standards setting bodies. Rather, Judge Mary Cooper simply held that Qualcomm's alleged abuse does not give rise to federal antitrust liability." Aint this the Nokia complaint? Would it not serve Broadcom to wait to see the results of that action before sueing again or settling? Dan D.