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 : EDTA (was GIFT)
EDTA 0.00005000.0%Nov 21 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: cc rogers who wrote (460)6/30/1996 7:08:00 PM
From: Brian Haulman   of 2383
 
cc, welcome to the GIFT thread. None of us here know what will
happen in this patent case. As Mel repeatedly states, it is a calculated
risk that is worth a partial investment. I agree. To your points:

1.) Are the insiders just looking for small investors to raise the price so
they can get out at a hefty premium? I don't think the cases would have
gone on this long. They have not dropped any court cases -- defendants
have settled. I am assuming that the settling defendants have paid a
respectable amount for their licenses (we won't know what they paid
and I don't think anyone should yet for the sake of obtaining more
licensees). After all, a room full of lawyers is very expensive -- the
proof that the defendants take this case very seriously.

2.) Are there prior cases? Again, Mel has referred to defendants having
to come up with prior art. From InformationWeek 6/24/96 page 10,
" PTO giveth, Taketh Away - Last week was rough one for Gilbert
Hyatt. The US Patent and Trademark Office overturned a patent he
was awarded in 1990 for the first single-chip microcontroller. The award
had earned Hyatt millions in licensing revenue from various European
and Japanese companies. The PTO now says the patent belongs to
Texas Instruments engineer Gary Boone. TI had filed related patents
in 1971, the year IT and Intel are credited with buliding the first
microprocessors." This I think is what Mel talks about as prior art.
If someone had previously received a patent for this technology or
had other proof of its invention, the cases would not even go to trial.

Anyway, we never know what a patent judge will decide. Which leads
me to yet another point -- I hope Mr. Fink was not too rude to Judge
Jones when he told her "Do not interpret what I said". This is the only
things that worries me at the moment. Bullying a Judge does nothing
but hurt your case. Just my thoughts!
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