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: jimtracker1 who wrote (61442)	3/24/2007 2:04:50 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197244

JT - I happen to think that an import ban is totally disproportionate but that ignores the fact that it is going to be decided by a court/judge and that puts it into the realm of a casino. The BRCM expert witnesses clearly think that a ban is appropriate and their views are on the table not ours. Anyway as I say this could all be ended in ten seconds so why doesn't the greatest R&D department do something to work around it? Best, L

To: jimtracker1 who wrote (61442)	3/24/2007 2:09:25 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197244

I agree and disagree with you, Jim. I agree with you re: getting carried away with respect to the recenly lost BRCM case. It is clearly not that important, no great loss in the big picture of things, and BRCM of course still needs a license from Q whatever happens on appeal or at the ITC. So, yeah, nothing to get too upset about, really, as far as that specific case goes or the ITC, which hasn't ruled and is unlikely to issue a downstream exclusion order. But...there is always a but. What does the fiasco in San Diego with respect to the BRCM case say about Q's legal team? I've followed this case very carefully not only because it affects a substantial part of my investments, but also for professional reasons as I like to see lawyers in action. I learn something and it is professionally interesting to me. What I saw was pure rank inept lawyering from the get-go, from calling an expert who wrote things which contradicted his testimony, to floundering questioning of witnesses, to using lawyers with next to no jury trial experience, and now to the hiding of emails. If any of the younger lawyers in my firm performed this badly, I would take them to woodshed for a very painful lesson in preparation, tactics, and ethics. They'd never forget and they'd never perform so badly again or they would be fired. But there is more to it than that, and that is this: Is this the kind of effort Q is paying mega millions for? Is our investment safe in view of the fact that the legal team has to perform brilliantly in order to protect the IPR and the royalties, which is what has made Q such a great financial performer? My confidence in the legal team's ability to deal with the bigger cases, the ones with NOK, has definitely been shaken by this episode. There was a huge lapse in wisdom, in exercising the kind of judgment that having a lot of gray hair and wrinkles gives you. I think it probably has a lot to do with IMJ retiring but that is purely speculative on my part.