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: Maurice Winn who wrote (75142)	3/3/2008 3:19:50 PM
From: mindykoeppel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197472

Mquarice - you always cheer me up when I am lowest with your great oratory. Where is the spin doctors PR. Awfully quiet out of Finland. And Engineer we all admire you and thank you for your contribution to this thread.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (75142)	3/3/2008 3:27:08 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197472

Carranza and co [sic] berated me, explaining that you have to pay BIG fees to get good lawyers. I did not berate you, I chided you. I would never berate you, Mq. In point of fact, however, my thinking changed after I saw how badly the legal team was handling things, esp. with regard to BRCM. I have been vociferous about these contretemps. They were a significant reason for my exit as a shareholder. Still, good lawyering will be expensive. It always is. Expensive lawyering, however, is not necessarily good lawyering. This we know. I am a relatively cheap lawyer by the standards of high-stakes IPR litigation, but even inexpensive lawyers like Stan and I [I shouldn't say that as I don't know his hourly rate] could clearly see the tell-tale signs of trouble well before it happened. This thread should be mandatory reading for all Q management. Just think of the trouble that could have avoided if the Q bigwigs had taken business advice from you and legal advice from me. Perhaps you and I can form a high level consultancy, make piles of cash together. We would market ourselves as strategic gurus, all-knowing and all-seeing. Simply do for a fee what we do here. Why not? We provide a valuable service, gratis. Why not cash in on our wit, wisdom and experience? Everyone else has.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (75142)	3/4/2008 11:45:23 AM
From: ironair	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197472

EU protectionism cannot be ignored as in the past. US needs to recognize that the world is changing and its uncoordinated (in a positive sense!) policies are being expoited, to the detriment of businesses that have chosen its jurisdiction to establish, grow, innovate and employ people. It would be a very positive thing if all countries and regions followed a US-like free market construct. In the past, the US's dominant position has allowed it to be relatively unharmed by purposefully ignoring the compettive inequities brought about by the coordinated efforts of the EU and its member states. However, the US is no longer unharmed. The continued progress of BRIC countries to build their economies and serve host to very strong global competitors has drained the US of a significant part of its production. The argument is that the US is keeping the high value added businesses, and thus the loss of more commoditized businesses is being remedied by the market. The problem is, in the face of this evolution, European govermental entities are interfering with market forces in order to protect businesses within their region. Someone in the US needs to take leadership on this, and call out the Europeans on their unfair and dishonest manipulation of the markets.