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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (61344)	3/22/2007 9:56:11 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

On that basis QCOM argued that the evidence presented by BRCM did not meet the standard of "clear and convincing." Meeting that standard, not whether QCOM should have informed the SSO (they should have), is what is in dispute here. A simple legal issue. I'd like to know exactly how the court treated the issue in its decision. Not really a legal issue but a factual one. It was the emails pulled out of the email box of a participant at the absolute last minute before trial that established "clear and convincing" evidence that Q knew it should have declared. The production of emails at the last minute smells of games being played since I have no doubt that BRCM asked for all such emails well before trial. Somehow, some way, Q decided it needed to produce them. Probably because it had a gun to its head, not because it had a sudden attack of legal ethics. Three possible conclusions: Q played a shady game, its record keeping is abysmal, or it is not prepared for high stakes litigation because of the onslaught of lawsuits. None of these conclusions is reassuring.