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 (54897)	9/1/2006 9:05:43 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196971

Agree. I think it obvious that the ND part of FRAND is met by Q's practices. The only bone of contention with any meat left on it IMO is whether they are F and R, and the hoi polloi like us have no idea as this is very much driven by a context which is invisible to us.

To: slacker711 who wrote (54897)	9/1/2006 9:20:04 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196971

I dont know the exact legal standards In most civil cases, a plaintiff must prevail by a "preponderance of the evidence", a loose standard. It's typically said that a litigant using this standard prevails if he has 51% of the evidence behind him. Fraud and a few other things are judged more strictly using the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, a standard which is difficult to articulate but IMO opinion is closer to the very strict "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used to convict in criminal cases than to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. I agree that Q never misled anyone. A fraud claim is not only legally difficult to prove but not justified.