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: slacker711 who wrote (75692)	3/21/2008 7:41:27 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197214

Re: single e-mail? Whatever evidence they have, they will now be able to get sworn testimony in depositions and at trial, as well as discovery of documents from all members of Project Stockholm Group and their common PR firm. Since the matter is now pled and at issue, all tools of court enforced discovery will be available to them.That could prove interesting.

To: slacker711 who wrote (75692)	3/21/2008 12:28:29 PM
From: Stan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197214

Allow me to pitch in re the "conspiracy." While it is true that pre-trial discovery is loosely granted, courts generally will give protective orders against fishing expeditions if there is no showing of the bases of the inquiries. I would submit that the filing of lawsuits by two different Parties does not rise to the level of a valid inference of conspiracy. Moreover, as Slacker has noted, the name assignment by a person not employed by either of the alleged conspirators would not be enough. Since there has been a change in Q's legal staff I can only hope that it is not making the same misguided mistake as their predecessors. That is, shoot buckshot at the target, and then look ridiculous when it misses. If Q has nothing more to support the claim, it will color the opinion of the judges who might otherwise have thought favorable to Q's position on the important issues. Finally, a word about the definition of "collusion". While most definitions do require them to be "secret" I suppose there are cases where public "collusions" have been found. However, another part of the definition is that it must be an "illegal" conspiracy. I have a difficult time concluding that an Agreement between Nokia and Broadcom as to which company would be filing legal actions, and where they would be filed, could possibly amount to an "illegal" event that would support a claim of "collusion".