To: JesseK who wrote (7112 ) 9/27/1999 6:59:00 AM From: Ausdauer Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Jesse,stooped to new lows and I think it blew up in their face with the update from UMC. It would appear that they were hoping to leverage the misery in Taiwan to amplify the effect of the preliminary injunction. Can anybody come to any other logical conclusion?meat and potatoes of the lawsuit is the patent infringement. Lexar is the test case. The SanDisk legal team will make an example out of them in order to set a precedent for others who may have infringed on similar patents. Recall that SSTI, a flash memory research house with competing technologies, has already acknowledged SNDK's CF patent portfolio and agreed to a co-licensing schedule. (BTW, SSTI has ties with IBM and may be using this relationship to establish production capabilities, if my memory serves me correctly.)indirectly as a "hidden" tariff added onto raw wafer supplies. A second card assembly licensing fee will price them out of the market as SanDisk brings their 256 Mbit technology to the forefront and continues to enjoy increasing consumer recognition via the growing and substantial OEM relationships and the increasingly recognized reputation for highly rugged and reliable flash memory consumer goods.
