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 (61459)	3/24/2007 5:13:54 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 197272

There were twenty or so. If that's the case, then I would agree with you. At some point, there's a systematic problem, which I would equate to questionable "lawyering."

To: carranza2 who wrote (61459)	3/25/2007 12:22:48 PM
From: Stan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197272

Carranza, I have stayed out of this discussion because much of it is above my non-technical mind. However, what I can discuss is the failure of trial counsel to properly prepare. Yes, you and I saw early indications that the Q attorneys were not properly prepared. Some on this Board have suggested that the attorneys cannot be held accountable for the work of underlings. To this I say hogwash. This often is the difference between winning and losing. A jury sees a lack of preparation and has a tendency to hold this against the Party.