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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quartersawyer who wrote (59090)	1/25/2007 8:11:15 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197344

Is this consistent with your understanding of the :option to extend" matter? Message 23220838 yes/no, please, thanx.

To: quartersawyer who wrote (59090)	1/25/2007 8:17:52 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197344

>>>"Lupin: If I can interject .... (...) Q: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APRIL 9, 2007 AND THE END OF 2008? Altman: That's a level of detail that ...."<<< Would you please provide the time indices for those two quotes?

To: quartersawyer who wrote (59090)	1/26/2007 10:38:08 AM
From: rvgent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197344

>>> Q: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APRIL 9, 2007 AND THE END OF 2008? Altman: That's a level of detail that I can't get into today. I don't want to be too mysterious, but we're just not at liberty to talk down at that level. <<<< Is it possible, that the text of the agreement allows ambiguity and that Altman doesn;t want to reveal to Nokia, how exactly Qcom is interpreting it? Knowing how Qcom is interpreting it will tell Nokia the type of action that qcom might file come infringement day. I realize that this possibility is remote with 500$/hr lawyers involved, but just can't help wondering...