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 : Vidikron Technologies Group (VIDIC)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Volcano888 who wrote (387)4/21/1997 9:36:00 AM
From: Gerald Thomas   of 782
 
It would appear of the three statements,

(1) someone is mistaken
(2)the law is ambiguous and unclear
(3)someone is lying

.Separately, Projectavision said its introduction schedule is unaffected by a New York court order placing certain of its patents under the control of a temporary receiver pending the outcome of litigation with its no-longer-affiliated founder Eugene Dolgoff. The patents cover the depixelization of images from LCD-based projection TVs and are not used in the upcoming model.. ****************************************************************************** Projectavision also emphasized that neither the nature, nor scope, nor authority nor the term of the receivership have been determined.

The Court also did not find that Dolgoff has any interest in Projectavision's technologies, including the Digital Home Theater(TM), which the company is currently manufacturing. Thus Dolgoff's statements that the receivership has been, "finalized" and that it will "take control of the disputed technologies until the litigation is resolved" are totally false. Reacting to this second appellate victory, Dolgoff said, "I am tremendously pleased that a court, consisting of five judges, has once again unanimously rejected Projectavision's self-serving arguments and ruled in my favor. Most importantly, the new ruling puts to an end any further appeals by Projectavision on this issue, designed to delay the relief to which I am entitled."

*******************************************************************************

Reacting to this second appellate victory, Dolgoff said, "I am tremendously pleased that a court, consisting of five judges, has once again unanimously rejected Projectavision's self-serving arguments and ruled in my favor. Most importantly, the new ruling puts to an end any further appeals by Projectavision on this issue, designed to delay the relief to which I am entitled."

The lawsuit, pending in state Supreme Court since 1995, asserts that Projectavision is improperly claiming ownership over many of Dolgoff's inventions, including one of the key patents necessary to manufacture what Projectavision has been calling its "Digital Home Theater and Internet Display System," which Mr. Dolgoff asserts belongs solely to him. Projectavision had previously announced that the system would be available for Christmas 1996 sales, but did not launch the product by that time. Mr. Dolgoff added, "If the court finds that the technology underlying the digital home theater belongs to me, then all of the profit from the technology will go to me, in addition to damages."
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext