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: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (191731)	12/23/2024 1:25:18 PM
From: sbfm	4 Recommendations Recommended By AlfaNut Dr. John JeffreyHF ryhack Respond to of 196746

There's an example of a conditional verdict question. Compare that with the three questions in the decided suit; no amount of revisionism can make those three questions conditional.

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (191731)	12/24/2024 12:01:24 PM
From: waitwatchwander	2 Recommendations Recommended By Lance Bredvold sbfm Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196746

That withdrawl was filed for Arm vs Qualcomm suite. No such filing was made in the docket of the Qualcomm vs Arm suite. I understand these two suites are linked but wasn't the withdrawl only made to simplify Qualcomm's defense in the first trial? Does prejudice in Arm's lawsuit have any impact within Qualcomm's separate suite? Arm vs Qualcomm: courtlistener.com Qualcomm vs Arm: courtlistener.com Also, doesn't the first trial focus more upon Nuvia's ALA/TLA while the 2nd counter suite focuses more upon Qualcomm's ALA/TLA? Lots of similar parts and dynamic interpretation states here.