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: Stan who wrote (147593)	1/12/2007 8:24:24 AM
From: blimfark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I hope not. The quote of his testimony says he discovered they were identical in the past year. The book is copyrighted in 2003. Hopefully the good doctor was able to articulate the he was wrong then but right now and why that is so. I agree it reads like one of those TV show trial moments. The Q should've sprung for a revision of the book and another printing and had it published last month.

To: Stan who wrote (147593)	1/12/2007 8:36:34 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Re: Big Ouch I wouldn`t jump to that conclusion, Stan. Cross-examination is fun, and much easier than direct exam (i.e. more "natural") for experienced trial lawyers. Past writings and statements of experts often prove to be fertile fields for the extraction of sound bytes on "cross". However, without hearing the professor`s (author`s) explanation, it would be wrong to assume that he had no reasonable testimony as to context, nuance, and his intent when the passage was penned. Qualcomm knew full well of that choice of language when they decided to call him as an expert, and their lawyers undoubtedly had a reasonable expectation that his explanation would be accepted by the jury. If the jury finds him to be a knowledgeable, authoritative, and appealing expert witness, they will readily accept his explanation of such zinger points made on cross examination.

To: Stan who wrote (147593)	1/12/2007 9:05:17 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

I can only hope that Q's lawyers can deal with that problem. I would never put on an expert witness who has written material directly contrary to the position I advocated, no matter how "explainable". It's a stupid rookie mistake, one I have used against opponents to crucify them. There are no doubt other experts available who can testify without having that particular mill stone around their neck. The jury wil get a huge blow up of the sentence Richardson wrote and Lee will hammer and hammer and hammer away at it in closing argument. Richardson's testimony may very well be worthless as a result. Lee will have a field day. This is not good. It's very, very bad. And combing through your expert's material before you hire him is something a competent lawyer always does as a routine matter to make sure there are no skeletons in the closet like the one uncovered yesterday. Stupid rookie mistake. I wonder how many trials Batchelder has actually tried. This puts Q on a defensive footing, one in which it has to explain things rather than cleanly and aggressively go after BRCM. It injects doubt into Q's case, its credibility, etc. Perhaps the choice was made knowingly and after careful deliberation. I cannot imagine that Q's lawyers did not know of the passage, so perhaps there was a deliberate choice. Putting on an expert who has written contrary to my position is not something I would normally do unless he was the only person in the world who can help my case. PS: I have long ago stopped counting the number of trials I have tried as first chair counsel, so I think I have a notion of what I am talking about. Perhaps as many as 75, anything from minor matters to multi-million dollar technically complex products liability cases.