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: carranza2 who wrote (147823)	1/19/2007 11:48:12 AM
From: Qgent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"It isn't delayed until it's delayed." Qgent edisweb.usitc.gov On January 5, 2007, Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”)opposed Nokia’s motion for certification of Order No. 19 but recommended that the Judge should stay this proceeding pending a final resolution of the arbitration of Nokia’s estoppel defense. Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm” or “Complainant”) seeks leave to file a response to the Staff‘s recommendation. I am granting leave to both Complainant and Respondents Nokia Corp. and Nokia, Inc. (“Nokia” or “Respondents”) to file a response to Staff‘s pleading. Staff actually addressed several points in its pleading filed on January 5,2007. I am granting leave to address only Staff‘s proposal that this proceeding should be stayed pending a final resolution of the arbitration of Nokia’s estoppel defense. The parties are not given leave to address the other issues or points addressed in Staff‘s pleading, and they should not address those points unless they relate to the issue of a stay. 2 The responses must be served and filed not later than Wednesday, January 17,2006. The responses shall not exceed fifteen pages, double spaced, and they must conform to the other requirements for pleadings set forth in the Ground Rules. SO ORDERED. Robert L. Barton, Jr. 'V Administrative Law Judge

To: carranza2 who wrote (147823)	1/19/2007 11:50:21 AM
From: hedgefund	Respond to of 152472

and this case is the first of several....we've got a long way to go. I don't know about you and maybe patent cases are an exception but on average no one wins and no one loses big when there is a judgment...a lot of baby splitting goes on....

To: carranza2 who wrote (147823)	1/19/2007 1:09:43 PM
From: BDAZZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>>It seems that the reporter is very smart<< Disagree. She skips days of the trial and does not recognize an important implication to expound upon, such as the one concerning the QCOM witness's book supposedly implying a contradiction of his testimony. Someone on this board had to beg her multiple times for further info on the confrontation (never really got the answers). She seems to be trying to state positives on both sides rather than reporting as a legal analyst. For me there is no telling how this thing is going, but there's a good reason why QCOM has a great record in these trials, and why BRCM has a terrible one.