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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (1122)	8/26/2007 5:00:40 PM
From: kyungha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

It will much depend on what the bylaw stated in the SSO. In general, if you are not official member of that particular SSO, you have no duty to disclose. It is clearly appealable as Art Bechhoefr clearly says. Q counsel thought the case was slam dunk but lost because of flaw in discovery part of litigation. I believe Q counsel knew there were tones of emails but thought not relevant. This was a blunder dropping a ball. BRCM picked it up gleefully and carried away for the judge to declare litigation misconduct and deceit/conspiracy on part of QCOM. It was an overboard, I think. Suppose, Q presented all the emails and evidences from the emails clearly indicated Q knew its IPR was adopted as part of standard. Then, the court had to decide if Q should have informed SSO of its IPR or not. Q did not conceal the IPR in question. The IPR had been known and licensed to a party before SSO began. If the bylaw stated even a non official member had duty to disclose or inform IPR while attending at the meetings, there was the reason to be reluctant to disclose those emails.