Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : WAVX Anyone? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Golden Bear who wrote (7876)	7/5/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: John	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11417

Hey Jack, I see you have a fondness for standard disclaimer language in most SEC documents, company statements and patents. If you look hard enough, there is a CYA (cover your ass) attitude in most of these documents and everything is arguable in court. If they didn't write this way, lawyers would be out of work in the business sector. Basically, you have presented an argument that can not be fought in this forum. That is why we have courts and with something like the Sprague patent, it would be an interesting fight. Keep seeking the high ground and try to remember WAVE is a speculation investment. And most of us are aware of the risks, but the rewards seem much higher. Cheers!.........John

To: Golden Bear who wrote (7876)	7/5/1999 10:06:00 PM
From: 24601	Respond to of 11417

Golden Bear: As you know, even bogus litigation risks must be taken seriously in a form S-1. For example, see how weak the E-Data patent claims are in real life: Message 9750669 Message 9752534 But I am sure you have read many patent-risk disclosures in forms S-1 and noted that, no matter how strong a patent might be, the holder discloses that there can be no assurances ... etc. The usual rap against Wave is that a gorilla could drag them around in litigation if they ever try to enforce the Sprague patents. The answer is that, although Wave intends to assert its intellectual property rights as necessary, the company intends to occupy the field with its proprietary know-how by executing its business plan (which happens to contemplate generous licensing of its technology). Best wishes.

To: Golden Bear who wrote (7876)	7/5/1999 11:06:00 PM
From: SDR-SI	Respond to of 11417

GB, My understanding (and I do underline that it is just my own personal understanding) is that the some of the contested claims relate to items cited and referenced in the Wave-related patent applications themselves, which apparently were significantly minor enough at the time to allow the patent examiners and the reviewers to recommend issue of the patents. It is also my understanding that the company and its patent attorneys feel that there is minimal risk in these contesting claims being able to prevail, should there be a challenge, and, that if they were to prevail, that mutually acceptable cross-licensing and settlement would be a not unreasonable expectation. On this basis, I have, in my mind, classified this risk factor in the category of admissible risk. Not being a patent attorney, I am not in a position to intelligently or effectively second guess the patent examiner's assertions that the claims of the Wave-dependent patents were sufficiently unique for the patents to be issued. I am aware, however, that in highly technical areas, overlaps of some individual claim items within two or more multiple-claim patents are often asserted and reasonably settled through mutually acceptable cross-licensing on the alleged common items. As recently as the company's preliminary investment industry Road Show in Boston a couple of weeks ago, the company has indicated that its patent experts have advised them that its patents would be expected to prevail without substantial successful challenge or that there would be any bar to the expectation of reasonable settlement, should they not. At this point, I see no reason not to accept this assertion. You may feel that this is acceptance on faith, and in a sense it is; but we make decisions based on informed, but not guaranteed, legal advice every day. None of the above removes this item from the risk factors that one must continually reassess as time goes on and as one decides whether or not to continue to maintain a position in Wave. Steve P.S. I did try to hug a bear today, but the bear said it was too hot and told me to save it for cooler weather.