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: carranza2 who wrote (67841)	8/17/2007 2:06:53 PM
From: queuecom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197452

Art and Carranza: Based on this presumed privilege and any revelations being damaging to Q's other ongoing litigations, how long can Q delay this judges opinion? I mean , they will be in litigation for years. Second, can you detail the decision options available to the Santa Ana judge? What else is there other than injunction? Thanks Queuecom

To: carranza2 who wrote (67841)	8/17/2007 2:10:48 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197452

The judge may look at the allegedly priviliged material in chambers So, the judge demands to see the privileged material in chambers and finds that, say, the QCOM general counsel or some other staff member with decisionmaking responsibility authorized a cover-up. The judge must then make some reference to such an eventuality in her ruling on the matter. The ruling is public record, and if it finds criminal behavior on the part of a QCOM official, then it seems as if QCOM has no chance to prevail in any subsequent litigation. The criminal behavior of its own staff will be cited as evidence in every related case, and there is little, if any possibility that a jury, much less a judge would be sympathetic, unless the offending material can be suppressed. Art