Zi-Corp (ZICA), formerly MCUAF Message Board

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 : Zi-Corp (ZICA), formerly MCUAF

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: CocoBob who wrote (1402)	9/14/1999 12:36:00 AM
From: dch	Read Replies (1) of 2082

Robert, thanks for sharing the conversation you had with Frank Chen. I do think that Tegic's PR was unprofessional and went too far with their claims for absolute victory. One thing I don't understand, however, is that if this statement from that Tegic PR is true... The Court found that Zi "had the burden of coming forward with evidence in support of its infringement claim or requesting additional time" and that Zi "had done neither." ...then it appears that Zi and/or their lawyers completely dropped the ball with respect to this lawsuit, which they initiated. I have to wonder whether they have some explanation for that development--for failing/neglecting to request more time, let alone coming forward with adequate evidence. In their own PR they did not address that issue, which to me seems key. What really happened? (You may not know the answer. I'm just raising the issue for anyone to comment on.) --dch

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next