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 : IATV-ACTV Digital Convergence Software-HyperTV
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: mike.com who wrote (12963)11/1/2001 10:38:59 AM
From: richard badauskas  Read Replies (1) of 13157
 
An abbreviated copy of the judges ruling is now floating around the web. It comprises a list of interpretations of terms used in various ACTV patents. My sense is that these interpretations agree with ACTV's interpretation and legally reinforce ACTV's patents.

DIS argued that the ACTV patents were too wide to be enforceable. DIS had to then argue the "legal semantics" of various terms in the hope that they could find legal technicalities to bolster their defence. The judge did not say they were too wide. I think that this basically defeats the DIS defence. He went through DIS claims and interpreted each term they contested basically in favor of ACTV. My sense is that the case now moves on to its next phase (and quickly). Someone with a legal background in patent law may be able to get a fix on the ramifications of the various interpretations.
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