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: limtex who wrote (880)	8/15/2007 4:01:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

Not necessarily. He isn't the Supreme Court. <Isn't all this hair splitting about attendance etc rendered redundant after Judge Brewster decision. He has articulated it in his judgement and doesn't that make it not only precedent but also the law for this case. > Maybe there is somebody in a higher court who will disagree, which would make sense to me. The whole disclosure/concealing concept is faulty. The standards bodies have a faulty approach, which they have tried to fix a bit by changing their rules a bit. Unfortunately, it looks as though not only the new rules, but Judge Brewster's new new rules, are being applied retroactively to the old rules of the late 20th century for QUALCOMM. When Nokia gets to the ITC, I'm sure the rules will be reversed and Nokia will get a pass; probably because QCOM didn't disclose some obscure patent early enough to the W-CDMA hagfish slime-ball gang, so ALL the QCOM patents will be declared unenforcable due to dirty hands and hey presto, QCOM will be left with only CDMA2000. Arbitration will be the mindless "Well, let's split the difference" approach. Nok says 0%. QCOM says 4%, so let's make it 2%. That seems fair. I never did like letting them get their teeth into QCOM property. Mqurice