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: ohohyodafarted who wrote (67949)	8/19/2007 12:20:37 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197451

I do not think that Qualcomm's officers and directors are foolish enough as to think that they can do this single handedly from the inside. I hope you're right. The way it generally works is that a corporate legal department is a kind of liaison between litigation counsel and management as well as a liaison between the operations folks who are involved and the litigators. The inhouse folks are very important b/c they know their company and can also appreciate things from the litigator's perspective. But no inhouse counsel, not even the GC, makes strategic decisions, such as what strategic suits to bring, what suits to settle, etc. Those kinds of decisions are left to upper management and/or the BOD. Lupin, whose judgment was flawed and who probably was crooked, was apparently given too much discretion in this regard. It might be that BRCM was seen as a minor player, a nuisance not to be taken seriously. Lupin may have been given absolute control over the cases involving BRCM. If so, another not particularly bright management decision. If the new Q GC is not going to have this kind of discretion in the future, things will mend. It is best that the traditional way of doing things be re-established. Unfortunately, that is not the sense of the note I read. I may be wrong. We'll see.

To: ohohyodafarted who wrote (67949)	8/19/2007 12:44:33 AM
From: bdog	Respond to of 197451

You are clueless. No offense!