No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until aclass is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless youretain one. If you purchased Motorola common stock during the perioddescribed above, you have certain rights, and have until no later than60 days, in which to move for Lead Plaintiff status. Any member of thepurported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff throughcounsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain anabsent class member.

To be a member of the class you need not take any action atthis time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish todiscuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice oryour rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contactTali Leger, Director of Shareholder Relations at The Brualdi Law Firm,29 Broadway, Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, by telephone tollfree at (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602, by email totleger@brualdilawfirm.com or visit our website athttp://www.brualdilawfirm.com/

The complaint charges Motorola and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Motorola builds, markets and sells products, services and applicationsthat make connections to people, information and entertainment throughbroadband, embedded systems and wireless networks.

The complaint alleges that in the summer of 2006, Motorola'spoor financial performance had depressed its stock price to below $19per share. In order to artificially inflate the price of Motorolastock, defendants began a series of false and misleading statementsregarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically,defendants repeatedly told investors to expect strong growth in salesand revenues. On October 17, 2006, defendants announced that Motorolahad failed to meet its revenue and sales projections. As a result ofthis announcement, Motorola's stock price declined over 7% in twotrading days. Then on January 4, 2007, defendants announced thatMotorola's fourth quarter 2006 results also failed to meetexpectations. This time, the Company's stock price declined almost 8%.

CONTACT:  The Brualdi Law Firm

          Tali Leger, Director of Shareholder Relations

          (877) 495-1877

          (212) 952-0602

          tleger@brualdilawfirm.com

          http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/

The appeals court also set aside a part of the lower court's order, saying the way it was worded "could be construed to prohibit the unfavorable comparison of even Time Warner Cable's analog programming."

Analog programming refers to basic cable packages, as opposed to digital packages that allow expanded programming and additional features such as high definition (HD) or video on demand.

The television ads, which featured ex-Star Trek actor William Shatner and pop star Jessica Simpson, aired last December and in January. They ended with the tag line: "For an HD picture that can't be beat, get DirecTV."

Time Warner Cable filed the lawsuit in December, accusing DirecTV of false advertising and deceptive business practices.

In February, Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction against DirecTV preventing it from running ads in Time Warner Cable's markets that disparaged the quality of Time Warner's high-definition programming.

DirecTV was also ordered then to take down any similar advertisements on its Web site, or other sites.

The Internet ads include one in which the picture quality of DirecTV is compared with that of "other TV," which the ad later identifies as representing basic cable, according to the appellate court ruling.

The DirecTV side of the screen shows a clear image of football player Kevin Dyson making a touchdown at the Super Bowl, while the image on the "other TV" side is blurry, according to the ruling.

"It is difficult to imagine that any consumer, whatever the level of sophistication, would actually be fooled by the Internet advertisements into thinking that cable's picture quality is so poor that the image is 'nearly entirely obscured,'" the court ruled.