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: kyungha who wrote (67927)	8/19/2007 1:29:42 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 197279

kyungha--I think you are substantially correct, but the problem addressed by the judge was in part procedural. It may be that the emails were harmless and didn't prove QCOM was deceptive, but the fact is that the emails were not delivered to the court in a timely manner. No one can say whether the emails would have mattered to the jury (either in favor of QCOM or BRCM). But by withholding them, QCOM or its lawyers committed a grave procedural error that may also have been criminal. The other part of the case, however, which forms part of the appeal as I understand it, is that the emails and other evidence together did not meet the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" required to justify a judgment against QCOM. That issue will be addressed on appeal. Art