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: lml who wrote (145478)	10/8/2006 12:11:13 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

iml/ Jeff/ C2/ Jay/All- QCOM v BRCM and BRCM lying PR violating Judges Order- Thanks for the interesting board discussion (been out of town for the week and still attempting to catch up) Lml posted this AP article with this link which included the following statement from the judge ordering against further discussions outside chambers. Yet, does not Broadcom’s infamous “lying” PR directly violate such order by incredibly quoting the judge and further incredibly misstating his ruling? Would not that PR be upsetting to the Judge??? TIA for your thoughts from our board attorneys - jim . . Snip from BRCM headline / PR >>>>> “Judge Denies Latest QUALCOMM Attempt to Stifle 3G Cellular Competition Broadcom Launches New Initiatives to Combat QUALCOMM's Anticompetitive Conduct QUALCOMM was not entitled to the sweeping injunction it requested. The judge characterized QUALCOMM's requested relief as "light years beyond" what would be appropriate. prnewstoday.com >>>>>>> AP Article snip >>>> “Both sides said no agreement was struck but declined further comment after the closed-door negotiations, citing an order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia against discussing the matter outside chambers. >>>>> iml post snip >>>>>>>>> The banner title claimed QCOM motion denied, but the story covered something else. Seems AP got my email telling them of the misleading title, as they've now corrected. See biz.yahoo.com