SI
SI
discoversearch

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: genedabber who wrote (147640)1/12/2007 6:07:56 PM
From: Jim Mullens  Respond to of 152472
 
Gene, Re: Q v BRCM and "Jim- It would appear Richardson's "one liner" would have to lead to questions of the type as to "if you didn't, then who did?" The part of the cross examination not reported on is unquestionably most important to understanding who won the point. I am amazed that more information has not been reported"

The "one liner" was the email from the reporter, not necessarily from Richardson. I hope he had more to say than that.

Again, I emailed back asking for "the rest of the story"

So far no reply--- Hopefully she attended todays trial and will report further.



To: genedabber who wrote (147640)1/12/2007 6:55:54 PM
From: SirWalterRalegh  Respond to of 152472
 
Jim- It would appear Richardson's "one liner" would have to lead to questions of the type as to "if you didn't, then who did?" The part of the cross examination not reported on is unquestionably most important to understanding who won the point. I am amazed that more information has not been reported,

I thought it was a legal axion that you don't ask a question that you don't know the answer to.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News