SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jim Mullens who wrote (62850)4/19/2007 5:51:52 PM
From: Eric L  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 196900
 
Fabricated References ???

Jim,

<< One wonder’s why the 1992 date is so important to Mr. Simonson? >>

'One' may wonder. Do you wonder and if so why? Do 2 or more investors wonder?

[As you well know] it is the date of the original subscriber license that Jorma Ollila and Irwin Jacobs started to discuss in 1991, a year before Jorma became Nokia CEO and took a small unfocused conglomearte with annual turnover of ~€2.5 Billion and focused it on mobile wireless telephony, and it is the subscriber license that was extended in July 2001 after a year of protracted negotiation.

<< And, why Mr. Simonson knowingly continues to use the fabricated 1992 reference at the risk of destroying his credibility in promoting this charade on the unknowing public? >>

It's not fabricated ... and although I'm not sure what this "unknowing public" you refer to is, but the risk of Rick Simonson losing the exceptional credibility he has gained since becoming EVP, CFO, and Executive Board Member of Nokia at the begriming of 2004 with informed investors, financial analysts, and NOK/NOK1V shareholders who follow Nokia and/or the broad wireless sector is very low.

- Eric -



To: Jim Mullens who wrote (62850)4/19/2007 10:03:40 PM
From: GO*QCOM  Respond to of 196900
 
<What's equally puzzling is why no one in the Wall St community (media / analysts) has called NOK on this charade >Seems that the street sees a trade in Nokia will make them alot more money then in QCOM ,while this all gets sorted out in the legal arena.They do not care about the complexities of patent weighting only what will fill there pockets now.