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: carranza2 who wrote (61399)	3/23/2007 11:53:02 AM
From: Jeff Vayda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197246

C2" re:<One of two or three things happened here. First, the Q lawyer hid the emails because they were not supportive of the position that Q had nothing to do with the JVT except to monitor proceedings. Second, Q got set up because it, ineptly or intentionally, did not produce the emails and BRCM had them from the JVT site. Broadcon then manipulated things to make Q look bad. Third, Q had no idea they existed and it got ambushed.> I am at a loss to see how you can expect the Q's law babies to be omnipotent. The best they can do is put out a request for people to turn in 'possible' emails. I know I get tons of crap everyday - most I manage to weed through and dispose of and or file, but I have a much smaller universe of potential email traffic than some of the Q folks involved in this case. I would be pressed to find an email years after receipt, if at the time, I felt it was not germane to my activities. Yes, things could have been handled better, but that is cheap hindsight. The thing is what to do going forward. One thing open to all of us - sell if the aggravation get too much. But it is Friday, I think I'll have a beer.

To: carranza2 who wrote (61399)	3/23/2007 12:58:11 PM
From: Qgent	Respond to of 197246

"Every single explanation is damning to Q. I can't think of one that does not reflect badly on Q's honesty or trial preparation. Since I don't think Q's attorneys were so abysmally inept as to not be aware of the emails - they pulled them at some point to prepare for trial, after all - my guess is that they purposefully hid them, not knowing that BRCM, who did prepare, probably had them from another source. Stupid and shifty." It's inexcusable how this was allowed to happen, the fact that someone pulled them and never disclosed the emails is indeed questionable. "We didn't get what we paid for, wisdom in counselling and obsessive preparation at trial. The legal team performed like rank amateurs." I agree on a extremely bad performance. "I disagree that they followed the written rules, but we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point. Perhaps the written stuff wasn't as strong as one would like, but it surely gave everyone notice of what was expected." I agree to respectfully disagree, with regards to the May 2003 standard. I'm at a loss for the 2005 standard. Nokia was just dealt a ace in this poker game, this decision hurts on many many levels. Qgent