Interdigital Communication(IDCC) 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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC)

IDCC 356.46

-4.1%

11:25 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3761)	2/5/2000 12:33:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) of 5195

All that's left is for the jurors to decide if there was infringement or not. My final question to you would be would ERICY spend all the court costs for seven years to try and invalidate patents they didn't infringe? If you can answer yes to that then you do have all the answers. Jim, no disrespect but your lack of understanding of the most basic of all legal strategies is showing. In any suit where there is a large amount of capital at risk, a multi-pronged strategy is almost always used. Since simple similes seem to be the preferred method of helping potential IDC investors understand the compelling nature of IDC, I will explain it in a way I'm sure you will understand. Say an attorney is defending his/her client against a rape charge and the attorney knows his client is innocent and the record can prove that with incontrovertible evidence. However, the victim identifies the accused as guilty. What strategy will the defense use? Will the defense limit themselves to the evidence that proves the victim must be wrong or mistaken or will they attack the credibility of the witness and bring in a lot of evidence that shows how unreliable eyewitness testimony is? Maybe they will even suggest possible motives for the victim to lie or suggest that no rape occurred. In short, when an innocent (or for that matter guilty) mans freedom is at stake, a good attorney will use all legal means to help insure that his client is vindicated. The same holds true in a high-stakes patent infringement case. If MOT attorneys thought there was any weakness in the patents, they would attack that first. The amount of money they spend doing this is inconsequential compared to the possible risk of not providing a vigorous defense. Another reason for MOT to first attack the patent is as a delay tactic in case MOT received an unfavorable ruling (regardless of whether that ruling was just or not) as IDC investors claim happened to IDC. Your suggestion that MOT would not question the validity of the patent if they didn't infringe upon it does not pass the rationality test and shows either a complete lack of understanding of ordinary legal strategies or an attempt to mislead potential investors. I'm not sure which. Bux

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next