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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JGoren who wrote (14939)	9/13/1998 2:36:00 AM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 152472

Truce, counselor. I know squat about Texas law. I just think it is really abundantly clear that even if all the alleged facts stated in the Starr report are assumed to be true (never mind how he charcterizes them), that Clinton has not committed any High Crime or Misdemeanor. Within the meaning of the Constitution. Accordingly, I believe Clinton should move for, and be granted, summary judgment. Or the political and Congressional analog of that. Won't be that clean. But I think more or less just might happen. Doug

To: JGoren who wrote (14939)	9/13/1998 3:02:00 AM
From: jpbrody	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Just to get back to some QCOM related topics. There is a big article in Sunday's NY Times about the upcoming change for LU. Apparently they have been restricted from "pooling of interests" types of mergers until October 1 of this year and there are speculations about what will happen once the floodgates open. The article mentions several big name telecom businesses that may merge with LU. No mention of QCOM, but they do mention Nokia and Motorola. The article is at: (free, but you have to register.) nytimes.com -- Jim

To: JGoren who wrote (14939)	9/13/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: Sawtooth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

<<Frankly, this is the Qualcomm thread, and it's time to get back to Qualcomm's business.>> Thanks, JGoren. With all due respect for those who have made a profession of the practice of law, including,some of my closest family and friends, the arguments on this board were starting to remind me of the old saying, "But there be no sweeter song to an Esquire than the lilt of his own voice." Excellent arguments in this sordid matter can be built on each side. But there is no trial here, no jury, no judgement. Hence, argument for the sake of argument. Probably best conducted elsewhere. Regards.