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: Jim Mullens who wrote (145493)	10/8/2006 5:59:47 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi Jim, Not sure about comments in your post. First link you provided is dated 10/2, prior to settlement conference b/w Samueli & I Jacobs on 10/4. Second link is link to AP article I initially pasted, whose ORIGINAL title initially laid claim to BRCM's position, that preliminary junction was denied. A complete mistruth. AP has since revised article's title. AP article is dated 10/4 & was initially released following Wednesday's settlement conference. Article states: "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." I guess your question is how broad or narrow should one construe Judge's order. Operative word in AP reference to Judge's order is "discuss." Obviously, to accurately construe Judge's order, one must 1st review the actual order, not AP's reference thereto. With that said, the first link you provide may very well be prior to issuance of the Judge's gag order, which he may have issued on 10/4 . . . but don't know. Second, the gag order may only apply to Samueli, I Jacobs & their lawyers present during the settlement conference. Again, don't know.