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: mindykoeppel who wrote (67675)	8/15/2007 7:04:50 PM
From: limtex	Respond to of 197482

MK - No wonder Q is $35.90 A/H still falling A/H - Clearly we have reached some kind of event in the life of the Q. This BRCM battle sounds from IJs evidence to be a whole lot worse than was thought. Best, L nasdaq.com

To: mindykoeppel who wrote (67675)	8/15/2007 7:36:31 PM
From: phatbstrd	Respond to of 197482

In place of an injunction, Qualcomm said in an Aug. 2 document filed with the court that it offered to pay Broadcom three times a royalty rate model that the jury used in May to calculate damages. As a result Broadcom would suffer "no hardship" for lack of an injunction, whereas a ban would cost Qualcomm $2.4 billion in revenue over five years, it said. This statement of fact could bring some sanity back into the process... The patents in the case cover video compression for mobile phones, walkie-talkie-style technology, and simultaneous communication between different types of networks. A ruling is not expected until September, lawyers from both sides said. This statement means Q shares may get whacked for quite some time...

To: mindykoeppel who wrote (67675)	8/15/2007 8:15:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197482

Jacobs said he believed Qualcomm General Counsel Lou Lupin was "not correct" when he told the news media in May that the verdict would have "little effect" on the company. "Qualcomm would be harmed very substantially," Jacobs said. Did Qualcomm issue a statement in May correcting Lupin's comment? --Mike Buckley

To: mindykoeppel who wrote (67675)	8/15/2007 8:16:03 PM
From: seti	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197482

!! Freaking unbelievable !! The proposed injunction, calling for Qualcomm to stop making chips that a jury found in May infringed three Broadcom patents, could cost it $2.4 billion over five years, Qualcomm said in documents filed this month with the federal court in Santa Ana, California. certainly does not inject confidence in qcom's business prospects On the second day of the penalty phase hearing, Jacobs said he believed Qualcomm General Counsel Lou Lupin was "not correct" when he told the news media in May that the verdict would have "little effect" on the company. "Qualcomm would be harmed very substantially," Jacobs said. incompetence on a grand scale - all around. Jacobs said Qualcomm had not attempted to find alternatives to the infringing chips while the case was being litigated. why not? because they like to be grabbed by the balls? "I'm not sure the impact reached me and I did not take any steps," said Jacobs, who gave up the chief executive job to son Paul Jacobs in mid-2005, shortly after the lawsuit was filed. who's in charge? is anybody home?