2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum 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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 368.29

+0.6%

Nov 7 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (93861)	8/27/2012 6:51:17 PM
From: benwood	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 217577

Haim, what you said about relying on a jury reminds me of a good friend who was the engineer/attorney lead for Microsoft when they defended a patent infringement suit brought by Stac Electronics in '93 or so (disk compression technology). What he told me is that he simply could not differentiate for the jury the difference between a 'lookup table' and a 'hash table' which was the crux of the final problem which resulted in the jury finding for Stac to the tune of about a hundred million I believe. He and I knew it was incorrect. I also realized that, as a technical person myself, I'd never make it out of voir dire (that is, I'd be excused by the party that would benefit from ignorant jurors). I don't know enough about this current patent decision to have an opinion. But I do remember the ideas that Apple lifted from Xerox many years ago which they later claimed were theirs in the famous "Look and Feel" lawsuit which they lost v. Microsoft/Windows. At least that decision worked out correctly...

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next