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 (147631)	1/12/2007 3:39:59 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I have not seen any reports which suggest that Q brought up the issue on opening statement or during his direct examination, which would have been the way to deal with it in advance of having the jury raise its eyebrows when it first heard of the matter. On re-direct, I probably would have left the issue alone rather than draw attention to it, but that is a judgment call I cannot make not being present at the trial. I realize of course that we don't have the full story, but if it turns out that Q did not try to explain Richardson's writings at the start of the trial to rob BRCM of the impact the testimony would have, then I would have to think that Q was caught unprepared, a terrible error, but not the first one I've seen in Q's team. I recall a blown deadline as well as the inexcusable error in drafting to allow NY law to apply in the TXN cross-license. The Q legal eagles have lost some my esteem in connection with these two incidents, but if the one we are talking about is an error in planning and trial preparation, I am going to seriously consider selling a very large chunk of my holdings. Something is wrong if we do not have a top notch legal team, yet are paying tons of money for it. For the money paid, which materially affects earnings, Q ought to be demanding absolutely compulsive trial preparation. And no errors whatsoever. None. Zero. More important, the share price utterly depends on some legal wins and the appropriate defense of the IPR. If Q is botching that end of things, well, I won't go any further as you know what that means. This BRCM suit is very small beer as compared to the NOK fight.

To: Stan who wrote (147631)	1/12/2007 3:56:12 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Stan- Re: Q v BRCM and "What we haven't seen is what, if anything, Q attorneys were able to do on redirect. Without knowing what happened there, we are really at a disadvantage" FWIW- I emailed KB, the SD Tribune writer saying she left us out in the cold w/o informing what Richardson's retort was. She replied within the minute with a one liner saying Richardson answered saying he did write that statement. I quickly emailed back asking if that was all, if the Q's attorneys had a response? No reply so far, she could be in court all morning.