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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (29360)	5/7/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Michelle, "BYE" Regards, Mp

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (29360)	5/7/1999 1:47:00 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Michelle, stick to your software; you're not a lawyer. Your analogy concerns what is called fraud from the inception, which occurs when a party intends from the beginning never to honor the contract. That is inapplicable in Qualcomm's circumstances. I sympathize with the employees who will lose their unvested options, but a contract is a contract. Under multi-year vesting, the employee does not earn the options until the service requirement has been met. Unless the employee has been hired for a express term of years, an employee generally has no right to employment for the full vesting term, and the employment contract is "at the will" of the employer.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (29360)	5/7/1999 8:46:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Perhaps the (unfortunate) lesson from this (options / infra. division) is : if one ends up in a similar situation at any point in their working career, make sure you spend your own "real money" on listed options on your company's stock. (Especially if your division might be the thing restraining the company's stock price from soaring). Jon.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (29360)	5/7/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: Harvey Rosenkrantz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a vice president. Therefore it does not appear that the senior people got a better deal than the workers in the trenches.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (29360)	5/7/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: RalphCramden	Respond to of 152472

OK, those are my concerns, I'll go back to lurk mode now, I feel like a fish in a mudpond here. Michelle, you've been around, you know newsgroups. Please ignore anybody who spends effort trying to shut down posters who threaten to make him feel bad about the money he's making or who do not believe in QCOM infallibility. There are quite a few of us reading this who would like to hear what someone with your experience has to say, and a whole bunch of us who think posting rarely but interestingly is a virtue, not a vice. This newsgroup is as good as its best posts if you read it the way anything on the net should be read. Don't define it down to its average: there ain't no editor (or moderator). I consider QCOM's special relationship with its employees to be an asset of the company with real if difficult to quantify value. I would hate to think that QCOM sold that asset as part of this infrastructure deal, yet that will be de facto what happened if QCOM's remaining employees believe they must protect themselves from their own employer. As a result, I am vitally interested in the opinions of people like Michelle who live, work, and manage in an environment where equity compensation is a well-used component of business. It helps me evaluate whether QCOM has sold part of the baby with the bathwater.