SI
SI
discoversearch

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
An SI Board Since June 2000
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
198051 1047 8 QCOM
Emcee:  Silcon Observer Type:  Moderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
197302I dont see them being able to shell company this damage award away - I also dontOptntrdr19993January 21
197301more like they are isolating the damage award they kinow they will get by splittengineer-January 21
197300I see the motion is SEALED so we won't know much until the judge rules. Yeswaitwatchwander5January 21
197299It's not unusual for a Motion To Bifurcate to be filed to submit equitable rJeffreyHF5January 21
197298Looking like Arm wants to split off parts of upcoming trial and remove jury deliwaitwatchwander2January 21
197297all of this would be the subject of a different lawsuit - right now - its all abOptntrdr19994January 20
197296Jim -- I mentioned power management patents owned by QCOM as probably the most lArt Bechhoefer-January 20
197295<i> I'm giving evidence as to me taking my big position in Intel waElroy-January 20
197294Art- Re: QCOM blocking IP - Arm- .............................................. Jim Mullens-January 20
197293Jim -- At the very least, Qualcomm's power management IP would probably not Art Bechhoefer-January 20
197292Art- re: Arm / QCOM IP..........................................................Jim Mullens-January 20
197291Last I heard, ARM, no matter which part of ARM we're referring to, has no liArt Bechhoefer-January 20
197290I find the response interesting - in that it admits one ARM entity contacted qcOptntrdr19997January 20
197289Why is it so hard for investors to understand that it's a big tailwind for yA.J. Mullen7January 20
197288Bill, re: NVDA new N1X – equipped gaming laptops ………………….......................Jim Mullens-January 20
197287Exclusive: Nvidia targets 2026 launch for Windows on Arm notebook Monica Chen, TBill Wolf1January 20
197286Amon at Davos- WSJ Alan Murray video - Positive / respectful interview from MurJim Mullens4January 20
197285<< "He's the right man at the right time?" What are you, Doug M.3January 20
197284JG- re: QCOM v ARM - ............................................... One of theJim Mullens-January 20
197283Thanks... JimSilcon Observer-January 20
197282thanks... QHTSilcon Observer-January 20
197281One of the first questions asked in discovery is usually whether the correct entJGoren2January 19
197280Rev---Message #197279 from Jim Mullens at 1/19/2026 7:03:04 PM SO, re; QCOM v Jim Mullens2January 19
197279SO, re; QCOM v ARM- Motion to consolidate. Add- Opened the link and statementJim Mullens2January 19
197278Here is their request to consolidate the two cases: gov.uscourts.ded.85553.595.0QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN2January 19
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News