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: JeffreyHF who wrote (147601)	1/12/2007 9:30:47 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

I am not saying the team is incompetent. I'm saying that if there is an expert who can testify to the same things as Richardson has, and I am sure there is, it is not a good idea to put on an expert witness who is so obviously open to attack. As far as the jury possibly putting the testimony aside, Q had no idea how this particular jury would respond. There may have been mock trials or focus groups to see how the issue played out, but my instinct is that the mock trials or focus groups would have suggested to Q to not use Richardson. Besides, the deadlines for naming experts probably passed well before any mock trials or focus groups were used. Plus, I don't know how signficant mock trials and focus groups are in a very complex technical case. Even though San Diego is a fairly well educated community, I'll be surprised if there are many technically competent folks on the jury. They are not likely to "get" the finer technical points; they sure as hell will "get" the fact that Richardson wrote contrary to Q's present position. Hope I'm wrong, I often am.