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 : Avant (AVNT)
AVNT 31.33+0.5%Dec 24 12:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Cosmo Daisey who wrote (523)9/22/1997 12:27:00 PM
From: tonto   of 3441
 
Cosmo, any more news on a settlement?

I do not think there is a total disregard of the hearing, I believe too many people are just aware of the releases put out by AVNT on their enormous transactions that indisputably only they release.

Following are some comments by judges... regarding the case as posted on the Asensio website:

August 21, 1997

Avant! exposed to enjoining order on theft of database alone.


Cadence's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was entered in April 1996 and argued before Judge Whyte in September 1996, is based upon conclusive physical evidence that proves Avant! literally copied large parts of Cadence's legally protected database property.
Cadence believes that based solely on this undisputed and proven
act of copyright infringement it has the right to obtain an injunction.Judge Whyte's March 1997 Order concludes that the "evidence establishes that Avant! copied Cadence's property that is protected as copyrighted and as trade secret."

Cadence is relying solely on the easily proven, literal exact copying of protected database property to obtain an injunction and sees no purpose to challenge Avant!'s irrelevant assertions at the Appeal level. Therefore, Cadence did not directly refute Avant! claims at the August 12th hearing. This does not in anyway indicate that Avant!'s assertions are true. On the contrary, it is completely false and untrue that 95% of Avant!'s code is "clearly and unquestionably original." The facts are that Avant! and its key officers stand charged in civil and criminal court of stealing exactly the material
they claim to be "clearly and unquestionably original." It is also entirely false and untrue that Cadence's database, upon which the injunction request rests, is unimportant. The database is essential to Avant!'s Aquarius products, belongs to Cadence not Avant! and Avant! has no right to use it. As U.S. Court of Appeal Judge Sidney Thomas asked Avant!'s attorney last week: "If the 5% was so insignificant, why did they copy it?"

I will highlite the second report next.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext