Thank you Jules for your well reasoned message.
I have owned Intel since 1983 so I certainly count
as a long term holder. I would add to your message
that Intel has been particularly strong in their
protection of their own intellectual property.
On the flip side, and this is where individuals with
much more legal and business experience than I have
might comment, our legal system permits shenanigans
that defy logic. Let me tell you a short story.
The company I work for is Hazeltine. In the mid 50s
Hazeltine developed the technology and the attendent
patents that covered a large number of circuits in
color tv receivers. They sold these patents to tv
manufacturers as a bundle - buy them all or buy none.
This was standard practice for patent holders back
then.
Zenith tried to break the patents by finding alternative
solutions that bypassed Hazeltine patents. They broke
all but one. They tried to buy the one and Hazeltine said
no. Zenith then DELIBERATELY SIMPLY USED THE
HAZELTINE INVENTION they couldn't bypass in their
receivers. Hazeltine sued. Zenith countersued
saying that our policy of selling patent pools was restraint
of trade. We won in federal court. Zenith appealed. We
won in the federal appeals court. Zenith appealed to the
Supreme Court. In a 5-4 landmark decision that is still
studied in law schools, the Supreme Court decided that
Zenith was in the right and awarded TREBLE damages to them
and almost drove Hazeltine out of business. In this case
the Supreme Court rewrote the law and declared that selling patent pools only was restraint of trade. The Supreme court effectively outlawed the way patents had been sold for 180 years in the US with that decision.
I am not arguing who was right and who was wrong. I am saying
that enterring the court system on the assumption that you
have acted entirely within the law based on PAST RULINGS and
PRECEDENT in this case nearly busted a fine company.
I am telling this cautionary tale not because I believe that
INTEL is not one the finest, most honorable corporations the
world has ever seen. I am telling this tale because I believe
that the US court system is incredibly unpredictable. DEC
can portray itself as little David to the Goliath of Intel.
As I have watched the famous court cases of today such as
the first OJ trial, the Kennedy trial in Florida, the first
Rodney King trial, and the cigarette cancer trials, I am
convinced that good lawyers can represent up as down, black
as white, night as day, good as bad rather easily.
So that is what I am concerned about. Enterring the legal
thicket is high stakes gambling. Being in the right is useful,
but certainly not decisive.
One more story. A gal was sued by a businessman for a transgression. The gal was absolutely in the wrong (or liable, I guess is the correct term). In any case, she countersued on some trumped up basis dreamed up by her attorney. Guess what, she defeated the original suit and prevailed in the countersuit. The party whom she had originally wronged had to pay a high dollar award to her (which must have been absolutely infuriating). True story. The moral is that I can't count on the courts to protect Intel if it is in the right, which is my current assumption. I suspect that a good attorney would tell Intel to settle out of court and to settle quickly. But I'm not an attorney and I certainly could be wrong.
Sorry for the length. Best regards and thanks for responding.
Still with Intel but nervous,
Burt
|
