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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (29392)	5/7/1999 10:05:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Observations on the infra brouhaha: It is no doubt true that Q!'s share price began to soar with the announcement of the sale of the loss-incurring infra division, but I think that many on this thread would also support the notion that the stock also took off because ERICY deal (esp. same royalty on all 3G flavors) was the final VALIDATION of CDMA that further opened the royalty floodgates and took the legs out from under those remaining market and carrier pundits who said ERICY/NOK etc. had superior technology in W-CDMA or whatever. Some legal points: 1. As a poster noted, it is true that employees without contracts are such at the will of their employer and contracts (options/plans) are to be enforced according to their terms. However: 2. [ ##Harvey's post would seem to put this to rest] If true (the LA Times article does not refer to this) that executives who participated in the same plans as other employees received parachutes or additional compensation not attributable to their existing contracts or executive SOPs, would be a problem; 3. Plan is silent on change of control when a division is sold (according to the LA Times): 4. California state law and courts are, according to an experienced labor lawyer in this area, quite supportive of employee "rights"; 5. In recent years and even in the post-Reagan era, courts have increasingly reached decisions to the effect that employees have property "rights" in what otherwise might be construed on their face to appear to be "employee benefits" granted at the discretion of the employer; 6. Ramsey's point is well-taken, but the question remains on the forfeiture of the unvested options. 7. The longer that this takes to play out, I think, the greater employees leverage. Tough issue for Dr. J. His judgment has been excellent. Go Q!! Regards. Liacos_samui