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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (817)	8/15/2007 3:03:06 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 9132

C2, the lawyerly cunning is a Catch 22 in Rudi's court. If Lupin had pretended to have a negotiation with Broadcom, knowing that it would be futile, he would have been deemed disingenuous by Rudi Brewster. So, Lupin was straight up and honest and said, okay, we'll go to court. Which of course means said Rudi Brewster deems them ambushers out to hijack the industry. It is obviously illegal for QUALCOMM to protect their patents. I consider such lawyerly cunning to be the sort of scummy thing that too many lawyers get up to. The sort of "no downside" process Lupin unwisely entered into. That in itself is gross evidence that there was no plot to ambush the industry and that Rudi Brewster is plain wrong. As is being found, there is a LOT of downside. QUALCOMM didn't enter into a no downside case knowing that there was a grand plot to submarine and ambush and lie in court and conduct fake searches of email. Anyone would know that such an attempt has got a LOT of downside. Knowing that such standards committees have minutes and people see people at meetings and that there are emails galore and many many records, nobody outside a loony bin would try to lead a grand conspiracy to get away with what? Some trivial win. If QUALCOMM had won, it wouldn't have made a big difference. Anyone who doesn't know that lying in court, obstructing justice etc are hanging offences in the USA, is grossly naive. I have no idea why anyone would give evidence and lie about it when there was not much at all to gain and the loss from lying is definitely going to be huge and in such a public situation as a standards process is bound to be found out. It's not as though the standards process is held at night in a secret lair with face masks on and no records kept. Conspiracies are good for burgling the Watergate and other secret processes, not for conducting secret operations in Times Square at midday in the middle of the street, hoping nobody notices, then lying about it in court. There was no cloak and dagger. There were no bushes being hid in. The case was NOT out of the blue. Rudi is not taking an overview of the situation. I'd say we have had all too much lawyerly cunning. I am sick of lawyerly cunning. I prefer engineerly honesty. Mqurice