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 (61441)	3/24/2007 2:24:01 PM
From: limtex	Respond to of 197271

carra -i don't know how important this lady was. May be she gets all sorts of unsolicited emails, maybe she is hugely important maybe not, she certainly is now. The biggest worry is what else these lawyers might have missed. Good or bad it is better to know up front and not be surprised. Actually in hindsight the unsolicited emails were a postive advantage in the hands of the right lawyer for the Q. You have to hand it to the BRCM legal team. They are like something out of a TV series, they win. Best, L

To: carranza2 who wrote (61441)	3/24/2007 2:28:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197271

C2, whether some lawyers hid some evidence illegally or not has got nothing to do with whether QUALCOMM is infringing on a Broadcom patent and should be banned from importing the affected products. The consequence of lawyers doing things like that should be like Martha Stewart going to prison not for insider trading, but for lying about it. And Bill Clinton being impeached, not for messing up a blue dress and misusing cigars but for lying to an entity to which lies were illegal. The judge should fine the lawyers $100,000 for evidentiary misdemeanours of felonious intent. That shouldn't form part of the case to show QUALCOMM infringed a patent. People are convicted or perjury. It's a separate crime from the trial at issue. We are discussing the emails as though their disclosure is the issue, rather than the content. Which is not to say that it helps QUALCOMM's case. When one finds one is dealing with hagfish slimeballs, one assumes that the character trait is continuous, and it usually is. But the emails business looks like a minor procedural mistake rather than malign intention to be cleverly manipulative. I'm sure you know how many emails there are swooping around in hard drives. It's not as though they had a corpse hidden in a cupboard. Mqurice

To: carranza2 who wrote (61441)	3/24/2007 4:42:30 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197271

So, IMO, the Q lawyers either did an exteremely poor job of document gathering in preparation for trial or intentionally hid the documents or got bushwhacked. The fact that they had the documents in their possession then had to produce them after the witness discussed them on the very last day suggests to me that they probably hid them, but it is hard to say to a 100% certainty. I think you're blowing this way out of the proportion, as well as drawing extreme conclusions without anywhere near the information sufficient give merit to any of your conclusions. Missing a one particular email is NOT "bad lawyering." There's a lot more to lawyer that sifting through someone's email inbox. This work is typically performed by younger associates, & given the volume of discovery & time constraints, missing something of relevance is always a risk. Goal is to minimize risk, but no one law firm will ever eliminate it.