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: waitwatchwander who wrote (146915)	12/10/2006 9:50:21 AM
From: jackmore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Nothing is ever as "black and white" as one would contend. <G> True enough. But these three bolded quotes... 1. “the elements of Sherman Act violation do not inhere in failed negotiations." 2. "While this “agreement” may give rise to liability based on another theory such as breach of contract, it does not give rise to antitrust liability." 3. "While the technology licensing terms offered by Qualcomm may be restrictive and costly to Broadcom, that the terms impose a burden on companies wishing to compete with Qualcomm in the UMTS chipset market does not make such conduct anticompetitive for purposes of the antitrust laws." ...are huge nails in the coffin! And this one... "The absence of details as to the size of the UMTS market, who participates in the UMTS market, and Qualcomm’s share of that market shows that (1) the amended complaint lacks sufficient allegations of anticompetitive conduct to sustain a claim for attempted monopolization, and (2) Broadcom has not sufficiently illustrated that Qualcomm has a dangerous probability of succeeding in monopolizing the UMTS market." ...is a steep hill to climb. If BRCM could have climbed it, they surely would have. The judge's opinion is about as thorough a rejection of BRCM's antitrust claims as we shareholders could have realistically hoped for, imo.