Intel Corporation (INTC) 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 : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 39.99

-0.4%

Oct 31 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dave who wrote (62846)	8/20/1998 8:26:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (3) of 186894

RE: Exponential Patents Good observations. It impossible to deduce the date of invention from the date of filing, especially in the instance of Intel which never discloses anything important unless it needs to. Intel's refusal to preempt the Exponential patents when they could have had them for $25 million or so (a relatively trivial amount for Intel if the patents were important to protect Merced) suggests that Intel was allowed to examine the application for 5781750) after the first round and declined to outbid S3 because Intel believed it had priority or survivable claims on 5638525. Of course there's another possibility: Exponential's claims look like AMD's K-6 which are probably prior art to which, I believe, Intel has a license. In short, if Intel is in trouble, then it was incredibly dumb not to buy the Exponential patents. Intel is not dumb when it comes to IP, so I believe it is quite safe from challenge on this score. If it is, it ought to either buy a license (S3 could use the money) or S3 (ugh!).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next