Qualcomm's general counsel, Lou Lupin, has left the company after it
suffered three spectacular legal defeats in a row, though his
departure is for apparently unconnected personal reasons.
Qualcomm has been having a bit of a bad time lately - the ban on
imports of patent-infringing chips remains in place despite appeals
for a presidential veto, it has been accused of foul play in court,
and is engaged in ongoing litigation with Nokia, Broadcom and others
- so losing its general counsel could be seen as the least of its
problems.
In fact, the change might offer Qualcomm the opportunity to soften
its approach to patent issues. ...
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/08/14/qualcomm_council_leaves/>
>
> Qualcomm's general counsel, Lou Lupin, has left the company after it
> suffered three spectacular legal defeats in a row, though his
> departure is for apparently unconnected personal reasons.
>
> Qualcomm has been having a bit of a bad time lately - the ban on
> imports of patent-infringing chips remains in place despite appeals
> for a presidential veto, it has been accused of foul play in court,
> and is engaged in ongoing litigation with Nokia, Broadcom and others
> - so losing its general counsel could be seen as the least of its
> problems.
>
> In fact, the change might offer Qualcomm the opportunity to soften
> its approach to patent issues. ...
>
>
[MORE]
>
General Counsel are employed, usually, for the sole purpose of
interfacing with the high-powered, expensive, legal firms who do the
actual legal work.
Oh, and General Counsel signs the forms for SEC, IRS, etc.
John, please stop spamming the TMo group with news that doesn't concern
TMo. WTF cares if Qualcom hires a new shyster?
Quaoar wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/08/14/qualcomm_council_leaves/>
>>
>> Qualcomm's general counsel, Lou Lupin, has left the company after
>> it suffered three spectacular legal defeats in a row, though his
>> departure is for apparently unconnected personal reasons.
>>
>> Qualcomm has been having a bit of a bad time lately - the ban on
>> imports of patent-infringing chips remains in place despite
>> appeals for a presidential veto, it has been accused of foul play
>> in court, and is engaged in ongoing litigation with Nokia,
>> Broadcom and others - so losing its general counsel could be seen
>> as the least of its problems.
>>
>> In fact, the change might offer Qualcomm the opportunity to soften
>> its approach to patent issues. ...
>>
>>
> [MORE]
>>
>
> General Counsel are employed, usually, for the sole purpose of
> interfacing with the high-powered, expensive, legal firms who do the
> actual legal work.
>
> Oh, and General Counsel signs the forms for SEC, IRS, etc.
>
> Q
OK John, instead of calling it "spam" will it make you feel better and
make the point more clear if I call it "worthless crap?" What YOU
apparently need to learn is when cross-posting is appropriate and when
it's not.
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:34:53 -1000, "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com>
wrote in <46c3f02a$0$18789$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>OK John, instead of calling it "spam" will it make you feel better and
>make the point more clear if I call it "worthless crap?" What YOU
>apparently need to learn is when cross-posting is appropriate and when
>it's not.
>
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:24:02 -1000, "BruceR"
>> <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in
>> <46c280a8$0$3835$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>>
>>> John, please stop spamming the TMo group with news that doesn't
>>> concern TMo. WTF cares if Qualcom hires a new shyster?
>>
>> You apparently need to learn what spam really is. Start with these:
>> http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html
>> http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml
>> http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
> You apparently need to learn what spam really is. Start with these:
It may not technically be spam, but it's still offtopic and not welcome.
The likelihood that even more technical users of GSM carriers would care
about Qualcomm's legal woes is low, because Qualcomm doesn't do GSM (except
for a couple hybrid GSM/CDMA chips if I recall correctly). It's marginally
more on-topic for the CDMA carrier newsgroups, but...
alt.cellular would probably have been the best place to put this.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
On 2007-08-16, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> The likelihood that even more technical users of GSM carriers would care
> about Qualcomm's legal woes is low, because Qualcomm doesn't do GSM (except
> for a couple hybrid GSM/CDMA chips if I recall correctly). It's marginally
> more on-topic for the CDMA carrier newsgroups, but...
For what it's worth, that's not true any more. Qualcomm is selling
significant numbers of GSM/UMTS chip sets, enough so that they actually
show up as having measureable European market share these days.
I know Motorola did a deal with Qualcomm for GSM/UMTS chips. I wouldn't
be surprised if the Motorola V9 ended up in trouble in the US because
of this.
NEWS: Qualcomm loses general counsel 
Linear Mode
