The blogosphere is an interesting place. Yesterday, I blogged about the Qualcomm attorneys who recently had to explain their apparent electronic evidence misconduct in a hearing. Two fascinating things immediately happened. First, I received an e-mail from an attorney following the case suggesting that my post wasn’t entirely accurate. With a little further research, I agreed and revised the post. Second, and even more fascinating, the jury foreman in the original Qualcomm v. Broadcom trial wrote me. His name is David Ingraham, and his perception of the case was markedly different from what has been published, and he is clearly no fan of Qualcomm.
With his permission, I have reprinted his e-mail in full below:
"I gather from the Esq that you must be a lawyer and I am not. However, I may be more familiar with the case than you are as I was the jury foreman. I find it interesting that in the aftermath of the discovery that massive amounts of documents were withheld, the only parties being brought to account are the outside counsel. I guess that is the way the law works and those within Qualcomm are shielded from accountability. What a shame!
From the jury's perspective we were absolutely certain that several of the Qualcomm employees who gave testimony during the trial had lied under oath. We actually joked in the jury room about the strange case of corporate amnesia which had blanketed Qualcomm. However, no one asked for our opinion on the question of perjury or who might have been guilty of orchestrating the incredible series of lies which were presented to us. The assumption that Qualcomm has clean hands in this matter is so naive as to be laughable.
Finally, isn't it ironic that none of the evidence which was withheld was needed to prove the findings in favor of Broadcom? This was not a hard case to decide. Qualcomm's case was baseless and represented a cynical attempt to gain an economic position based solely on a jury verdict. And the final irony is the statement by Qualcomm's General Counsel immediately after the trial that they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Now he is out of a job, his company is discredited, they have to pay Broadcom's legal expenses, and their outside lawyers face sanctions. I guess they did have a little to lose after all. And yet sadly it seems that Qualcomm is able to shield it's own involvement in this disgraceful mess behind the pretext of client privilege."
David Ingraham
Well, there you have it. As usual, all is splendid confusion. Guilt there is, but whose? One party? Which party? Both parties? Stay tuned. Fog generally lifts.
E-mail: snelson@senseient.com Phone: 703-359-0700
