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 348.41

-1.8%

9:42 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Gus who wrote (3815)	2/9/2000 6:07:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) of 5195

Bux is something else. Your lawyer friend basically humiliated him about his weak and pathetic understanding of patents, Markman and legal strategies yet he's still here pretending that he didn't get a very public arse-whooping, asking for more punishment. LOL! You have got to be kidding, that reply was so weak I didn't figure it deserved a response! Sure, he puffed his chest out a lot and tried to discredit what I had said but you think he was successful? LOL! Jim Lurgio had implied that Ericy wouldn't try to get the patents invalidated if they didn't think they had infringed upon them. I made the valid point that a vigorous and broad offense is the best defense and provided the simple-minded analogy that IDC boosters are so fond of and then the nameless lawyer started blustering about all kinds of silly things like; How I said "simile" but meant "analogy" and he even went to the trouble to type out the dictionary definitions of both words just to prove how petty he was. LOL! I thought attorneys time was valuable! LOL! Then he pretends to get to the meat of the matter by discussing the technical details of how patent cases work and how little I know, but not contradicting anything I said except to say "So, in this context, only limited defenses are available and appropriate, notwithstanding your broad generalization." as if that negates my point that Ericsson chose the broadest possible defense by challenging the validity of the patents in the first place. LOL! I hope he doesn't use such poor logic when arguing a real case! Then he goes on and on about possible scenarios in the rape case that I didn't even mention but doesn't even try to relate these to the Ericy-IDC case. Duh! LOL! Then he makes a big deal about the fact that I accidently referred to the case as MOT even though it was obvious we were discussing the Ericy case! DuH! LOL! Then he slams me for not discussing the most likely outcome of the IDC-Ericy case even though the outcome of the case was completely outside the discussion and irrelevant. DuH! LOL! Then he slams the idea that there is any reason Ericy would challenge the validity of the patents as a delay tactic. DuH! Ericy has a TDMA franchise and reputation to protect! LOL! Then the entire last part of his post is just one long unsubstantiated slam after another without any supporting evidence or examples! LOL! Gus, I don't know who provided me with more belly laughs, the nameless lawyer (who claims he is a former employee of IDC) or you, who laps up his nonsense like a drunk dog. Thanks for providing the entertainment! Now back to more productive thoughts. Bux

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next