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: carranza2 who wrote (54895)	9/1/2006 9:33:58 AM
From: talksfree	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196997

To boot strap on your comment that this is a significant ruling, I feel it is a very significant ruling because it came at the preliminary stages based solely on the allegations on the Complaint. If Broadcom cannot even allege facts that survive the initial Motion to Dismiss, it reduces the chances of a suit by anyone actually going to trial. A suit that goes to trial is much more problematic because the risk of loss is much greater. This may give others pause before filing similar actions.

To: carranza2 who wrote (54895)	9/1/2006 9:42:19 AM
From: GO*QCOM	Respond to of 196997

<In other words, this is an Extremely Significant And Good Thing. We should thank sleazy BRCM for giving Q the opportunity to have a court put its imprimatur and Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on Q's business model.> The above statement of "EXTREAMLY SIGNIFIGANT" is well stated and its clear that the heart and soul of what QUALCOMM has been building into its fortress foundation and its bullet proof armor is just now being tested and approved.Onto Europe and more success!

To: carranza2 who wrote (54895)	9/1/2006 1:52:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 196997

C2, thanks for your analysis. I haven't read it yet. <This is the first time that a court takes a look at the model and finds that there is no antitrust violation.> And with wimax, wifi, pulsed monocycles, GSM/GPRS/EDGE all available without paying QCOM any money [even though GSM/GPRS/EDGE allegedly and apparently even according to, allegedly, inter alia, Nokia, use QCOM patented technology] there is ipso facto no monopoly, even if "the market" is defined as tightly as including only those technologies. Of course there is always the way around that by saying that the successful technology and company have over 90%, or maybe it's only 80% or 70% market share [the market being defined tightly enough to push the evil-doing monopolist over the line]. Right now, QCOM seems to have got away with it. Their conspiracy to create an evil-doing greedy monopoly has succeeded. What's weird is that the billions of people buying phones have nearly universally not even heard of QCOM and the great majority of phone don't even pay QCOM a royalty, let alone buy an ASIC. Usually, in a proper evil-doing monopoly, such as MSFT and IBM [before its alleged monopoly was found to be as leaky as a sieve], people have heard of them and worry that they'll rule the world. They never have. That's because there is no monopoly, other than government monopoly, which is an actual monopoly. All other alleged monopolies depend on very tight definitions which leave only the purported monopolist inside the definition [plus a few others up to 20% or 40% - it's very, very tough to define "markets" so precisely as to leave just the intended victim within the definition without simply declaring "Such and such is a monopolist and the market is the people who have bought their products. Other prospective customers do not comprise their market". It does seem like a very good win for QCOM. Mqurice