EDTA (was GIFT) 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 : EDTA (was GIFT)

EDTA 0.000200

+300.1%

Mar 7 3:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Doug Lakin who wrote (506)	7/12/1996 8:31:00 AM
From: Mel Spivak	of 2383

Patent litigation procedure 1.01: Here is my understanding. The judge decides: What the patent means and what it covers. GIFT, without any discovery alleges what it claims and "thinks" (on information & belief) are their claims and what is the infringement by each of the defendants. GIFT has to define its "words of art". The judge "digests" gets a "handle" on the patent this and they have a real hearing in front of the judge . One big issue is whether their was "prior art". I have maintained that the answer to this question is NO. The next issue is "what does the patent mean". Their will be witnesses. Guess who GIFT's star witness will be ???!!? Its CHARLES FREENEY !!! Who can best state what the words in the patent (his words) meant !!! This is one witness I will love to hear testify and shake his hand! The judge's decision on the meaning of the patent is VERY IMPORTANT. That will "define" the extent of thee patent. THEN, given the decision, a JURY will decide (after real "discovery" and GIFT's ability to amend its claims against the defendants to conform with the new proof that they get out the discovery process): a. Did (each of) the defendant(s) infringe on the patent? b. If yes, to what extent ($$$). If there is any "play" on this hearing with Mr.Freeney on our side in the general media, .... wow! Also, given the fact that Freeney has no proprietary interest in his patent (as he had sold its rights) he is more "objective". I have compared Mr F (GIFT's CEO) to a "grandmaster chess player". He knows what moves to make to be able to finally say "checkmate". I think Anmesty will take in many of the little pawns. Mr F will personally reel in some of the bigger fish. I like our chances here very much. Mel

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next