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: carranza2 who wrote (145848)	10/24/2006 11:40:56 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

carranza2 -- thanks. Another (idiotic) angle : mutual funds (on a 10/31/06 tax "year") ... all decide : QCOM is real low now (close to October 31st), so let's make sure to get rid of it from our mutual fund portfolio. (Then, if and when QCOM is "sky-high" in price (possibly as soon as right after the 11/2/06 earnings release), those "talented" (and highly compensated) mutual fund portfolio managers will all be clamoring to re-purchase shares of QCOM ...) Jon.

To: carranza2 who wrote (145848)	10/24/2006 11:43:19 AM
From: Stan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Carranza, I agree with most of your assessments. I feel that the drop is solely the result of bad forecasts by the mob and Q's silence as to its forecast. This could all change with a good result from the Q. As for the Nokia reversal however, I am a little more pessimistic after having reread the circuit's opinion. It seems to me that the circuit did not leave much wiggle room for the judge to find Nokia's claim "wholly groundless". Then, if it goes to an arbitrator, the usual result is that claims are found to be subject to the arbitration clause even if there is only the faintest hint that the Parties so intended. This is not to say that the Arbitrator would necessarily find for Nokia on the merits, but I, like Qualcomm, would much rather leave that issue to a San Diego jury.

To: carranza2 who wrote (145848)	10/24/2006 11:46:28 AM
From: Jeff Vayda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Time to kick up the dividend. All this 'stock buy back' junk does is serve the folks who dont want to pay taxes on the dividends. The stock buy back (by my eyes) has not taken any of the volatility out of the stock. (I would be in favor of ONLY buying the stock from the hedge funds and day trading accounts) I say each increase in R&D must be matched with a dividend increase! .... or how about dividend increases only to holders of less than 10K shares? Jeff@justtryingtoretire.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (145848)	10/26/2006 8:30:37 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"If [Judge Rudi M. Brewster] says that Nokia's demand for arbitration, though weak, is not "wholly groundless," he sends the case to the arbitrator for him to decide whether the case is subject to arbitration." Earlier you posted ... "Nokia asks the ITC judge to dissolve the ITC proceeding because there is an arbitration taking place between Nokia and Q in which the infringement issue is being considered by the arbitrator, Les WEINSTEIN." -- Message 22730029 If the arbitration is indeed taking place, that strongly implies Weinstein has already decided "the case is subject to arbitration." The only reason I can thing of ... for court action and arbitration to take place in parallel is to expedite the final result. But that flies in the face of our theory that Nokia's intent is to delay, delay, delay. BTW I never could find text supporting the "Weinstein arbitration" in that ITC filing link you provided. Help please, if you can find the time. TIA, Ron