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: kech who wrote (145314)	10/2/2006 12:30:06 PM
From: manalagi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I always try support my statement with a link. Carranza cannot do that and just pointing fingers. Remember that once you point finger to the other party, three fingers are pointing back to you. Some people do post showing of how knowlegable they are about QCOM, maybe technically, maybe financially, but not willing to face reality. Posting with anger never yield beneficial information. Anger overtakes rational thinking. Have a nice day. Mana

To: kech who wrote (145314)	10/2/2006 12:32:18 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"More complicated" could apply to either, or both, liability and remedy. If liability were found, barring those chipsets could forseeably destroy Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel, and plummet LG, Samsung, Kyocers, MOTO, and others. All for three chip technology patents? Can BRCM refuse to license them to QCOM, while demanding FRAND terms from Qualcomm? Can those patents be circumvented? Are they patents that derived from the failed QCOM/BRCM collaboration, and which may involve what has been alleged to be the theft of QualcommIPR?