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: quartersawyer who wrote (67777)	8/17/2007 1:45:48 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197466

After QUALCOMM claims attorney client privilege, I don't see how a judge can rule on sanctions until after related litigation is completed. Can the judge rule on the basis of an assumption? I don't think so. Does the judge need hard evidence? I think so. If there is hard evidence that QCOM staff, including its general counsel had a role in withholding or failing to deliver emails, then it certainly does place a black mark on QCOM in all further litigation. So I can see QCOM claiming attorney client privilege simply for safety sake in coming litigation. And yet, there is a nagging feeling here that if QCOM was completely guilt free and its outside lawyers were entirely to blame for not disclosing the emails, then I can see no reason for NOT coming clean. It only hurts the lawyers. I have never seen a situation like this where the company with IPR so botched its rights that it lost virtually everything. It does change the fundamentals for QCOM, especially if there is anything to the latest Nokia complaint against QCOM before the ITC. What in the world is QCOM thinking? Art