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 : Intel Corporation (INTC)
INTC 35.53-1.1%Nov 14 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Paul Engel who wrote (92017)11/9/1999 9:57:00 PM
From: jmac  Read Replies (6) of 186894
 
Just to clarify, you have most of it correct. TechSearch is a firm created by a group of patent attorneys. They went into a Ch 11 Bankruptcy hearing and argued that they should be allowed to purchase the patents for $50,000. Intel was present at this hearing as well. However, Intel did something incredibly stupid. They formed an offshore shell corporation to represent them at the hearing and hid its true identity until someone dug it up and brought it to the attention of the bankruptcy judge. That judge was so incensed, he gave the group of lawyers the patent for $50,000 (for which they are now suing for $2B to $8B). There are damages. If Intel profited from violating the patents, then that is damage. The whole transaction was a sham. It was buying a lawsuit which is prohibited by the legal code of ethics (yes there is one). Intel mishandled the situation but the attorneys who bought the lawsuit are also terribly wrong. It is was it wrong with America.

As for what happened today, all that happened was that the plaintiff (this group of attorneys) called an expert witness to testify as to what they thought Intel owed them for violating the patents. It was their witness. CNBC reported it as fact! Unbelievable. Intel will put forward their own witness as to how much should be paid if, in fact, they are found to have violated the patents.

That's my understanding. And, just so nobody acuses me of taking information that was given to me by another SI member, I got this information in a private message from another SI member.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News