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 0.000200+300.1%Mar 7 3:00 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: GRC who wrote (2131)5/9/1998 10:08:00 AM
From: m rosen  Read Replies (3) of 2383
 
1) The legal opinion only stated that a ruling from the bench or a markman hearing would yield the same result, and therefore how we reach the result is really irrelevant except for the potential time delay
associated with a markman.
2) Although prior art may tangentially be related to certain claims in
the patent, they felt that it would only be relevant to only a few of the claims in the patent but would not invalidate a vast majority of them.
Furthermore, they felt that certain claims had such well constructed and specific language that a prior art defense could only prevail on a limited basis. Finally, due to the rather recent history of the internet and
the rather limited technology that was available prior to the filing of the patent for a point of sale transaction in the early 1980's any prior art
claim will not posess all of the necessary elements of each claim to
be a potent weapon for the defense. They due feel a limited number of claims(less then 12) could be defeated with a prior art defense.
3) They did not feel the claims were limited to pre-delivered information
and they also stated that this judge will impose the plain meaning of
terms like authorization code, point of sale and information manufacturing machine. They felt Jones would stick close to the prior case law to avoid the potential for reversible error in a case that the defendants will certainly appeal if they lose.
4) the opinion was paid for by myself and two other investors with
substantial positions in Gift, substantial meaning in excess of 100,000
shares.
5) The law firm issued a statistical breakdown of several permutations
regarding the decision, which I will not be posting here because I agreed not to post it in its entirety. But, the 3% was real.
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