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: Qgent who wrote (61412)	3/23/2007 1:21:07 PM
From: limtex	Respond to of 197253

QG -seems to me that Q now has to appeal. They cannot allow these highly damaging inferences to lay unchalenged for other opponents in other courts on other cases against the Q to pick up and use to besmirch the good name of the Q. I just hope they get some differen lawyers to handle this. Best, L

To: Qgent who wrote (61412)	3/24/2007 4:33:11 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 197253

I disagree with Carranza's take that the emails were intentionally hidden by counsel. The lady testified that she didn't read them; therefore, when she searched for emails she wasn't looking for everything at the time of discovery. Then when things get serious and she is preparing for trial, she goes back and finds them.

To: Qgent who wrote (61412)	3/24/2007 4:33:19 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197253

I respectfully disagree with Carranza's take that the emails were intentionally hidden by counsel. The lady testified that she didn't read them; therefore, when she searched for emails she wasn't looking for everything at the time of discovery. Then when things get serious and she is preparing for trial, she goes back and finds them.