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: JeffreyHF who wrote (75696)	3/21/2008 8:39:53 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

In order to be discoverable, a looser standard of relevancy is employed. While relevancy at trial means that the evidence has "a tendency, in reason, to prove or disprove a material fact", discovery is allowed if it could lead to relevant evidence.Far more latitude is given during "discovery" than at trial. My legal education continues <g>. Thanks for the info. Slacker

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (75696)	3/21/2008 10:31:23 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 197214

Slacker, Jeffrey, drnm, Re: QCOM says “Competitors Conspiring” Drnm- thanks for the link (interesting – copying is not allowed) >>> ..+ Mauri Dolmans is the Moderator and NOK representative (also a legal scholar at Cleary, Gottlieb, Streen & Hamilton – Brussels). Snip form link (28th October 2005- Conference Call) …” Moderator:….. Broadcom is now carrying the torch in the US and we have now raised this issue in the European Union.” Re: “A Nokia spokeswoman said there was no Project Stockholm and that Qualcomm made up the name. “There's no plot, no back-door actions,” spokeswoman Laurie Armstrong said. “We've done everything very publicly.” I rather doubt “everything” was done “very publicly”, so discovery should be interesting!! A questions for the legal brains- “Conspiring” has multiple meaning, including –“ work together- to combine so as to cause a particular result, often one involving harm, inconvenience, or difficulty” There is no doubt that QCOM’s competitors are engaged in the above. But, another definition is-- “plan secretly to act illegally- to plan or agree in secret with others to commit an illegal or subversive act” What and when constitutes the illegal aspects???????????????? ..+ Subsequent to Oct 28, 2005 (the POS EC CC), the secrecy aspect (or some of it ) was removed. ..+ However, prior to that date, no doubt secrecy existed. Is this enough to be ruled a “illegal act”? TIA- jim