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: jackmore who wrote (61384)	3/23/2007 8:48:53 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197240

Not only had the emails been retrieved in preparation for trial, IMO the Q lawyer lied to the judge about their existence because I find it impossible to believe that Q's attorneys did not know of these emails sent/received to and from one of its main witnesses until a week before trial. If they truly did not know about them, something incomprehensible to me, the lack of preparation and incompetence is absolutely stagering and monumental. I don't think that trial team, though ineffective and sloppy, was that bad. They lied to the judge, IMO, and there's no better way to lose a case than to get caught lying to the judge. I don't like this one bit, but they appear to be the facts. Here's the court opinion and the judge's comments. If I were the judge, there would have been hell to pay, and there still may be: "Finally, it was not until Ms. Raveendran’s cross examination on one of the last days of trial, January 24, 2007, that she revealed that emails sent to her as a result of her being on the Ad Hoc Group email list had been pulled from her computer in preparation for her testimony: Q Did you receive mailings from the ad hoc committee identified in this exhibit? A During the preparation for this testimony, there were some e-mails pulled out of my e-mail box. E-mail archive. Q Were they produced to Broadcom? A I don't know. Q All right. But during the preparation for your testimony in this case, emails to you as a result of your being on this list were pulled out of your e-mail box, correct? A Yes. (Trial Tr., 53, Jan. 24, 2007). This court testimony came less than a week after Qualcomm’s counsel represented to this Court at side bar on January 18, 2007, that “there’s no evidence that any e-mail was actually sent to this list. This is just a list of e- email . . . addresses. There’s no evidence of anything being sent.” (Trial Tr., 92, Jan. 18, 2007.) After these emails were finally produced to Broadcom and to the Court during the lunch recess on January 24, Ms. Raveendran retook the stand to confirm that she had received at least twenty-one emails from the JVT ad hoc group dated September 2002 through March 2003. (Trial Tr., 198 - 200, Jan. 24, 2007; Def’s Exs. 5844 - 64.)"

To: jackmore who wrote (61384)	3/23/2007 11:11:11 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 197240

Wasn't the proper wording "emails to"? Since this matter started, I've subscriber to half a dozen similar email robots. Eudora kindly filters all my mail automatically into separate folders. I have gotten so much stuff than I am lucky if I can digest 1% of it. I suspect the Qualcomm person receiving the "emails to" may have been in a similar boat. Thinking such monitoring is a commitment to disclose is a void of reality and deficient. I also subscriber to a national newspaper. It has been dropped at our door at 5:30 every morning for the last 30 years and hardly ever gets read. Most email lists are no different than a newspaper. As a subscriber to both, am I obligated to understanding the content and therewith responsible for anything therein that may impact my life. Some ridiculous thought patterns are best implied and not stated. Jackmore's "hiding" comments don't fall into that boat.