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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (7831)	10/27/1999 8:37:00 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Re: Lexar patent suit. It is common in civil suits filed in Federal courts for a magistrate to be appointed and to invite the parties to a settlement conference. This does two things - it helps keep the docket from becoming overloaded, and it may help keep down court costs not only for the parties but for the court itself (i.e., us taxpayers). From the information you provided, it appears that Lexar was being notified to post bond. This is common where a preliminary injunction is requested, as opposed to a permanent injunction. Defendant SanDisk probably argued that a preliminary injunction would result in loss of millions of dollars of business, thereby requiring Lexar to post bond. Asking for a preliminary injunction, particularly where the court has already ruled that the other party is likely to prevail at trial, is indeed risky, and reinforces the argument that this lawsuit is being pursued mainly to harass, in the hope of reaching some out of court settlement that allows Lexar to remain in business, but at the same time relieves Lexar of past liabilities for patent infringement. Because civil actions of this sort are so expensive for both parties, and worse, because they drain valuable energy that the defendant could otherwise devote to expanding the business and improving the product, a settlement frequently gives the erring party (in this case very likely the plaintiff Lexar) more than it deserves. A recent shareholder suit against Trimble Navigation, another Silicon Valley company, though not dealing with patents, illustrates the corrosive effect of litigation. A group of shareholders claimed that Trimble's public pronouncements misled them into thinking the company was more profitable than it actually was. They sued and reached a settlement after several years, in which shareholders in the class get very little extra (but their lawyers did quite well). The real problem here was not misleading statements as much as poor quality management decisionmaking - a "sin" that should be, but is not amenable to lawsuits. In any event, after a management change, Trimble is now on the way to recovery. SanDisk has given the public very little info on the progress of the litigation (which is good, in the sense that one usually does better by keeping the cards close to the chest). By not giving in, but simply by pursuing its rights under the court procedures, SNDK is acting in its shareholders' best interests. Art

To: Ausdauer who wrote (7831)	10/28/1999 9:56:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 60323

Aus and thread, CF product questions and legal eagle queries: - In yesterday's NYT, there was a full page ad for a HP Photo Smart C200 Digital Camera and HP DeskJet 832C for a combined price of $399. The not-so-fine-print referred to storage of "up to 80 photos on a single reusable memory card.: Is that SNDK's? - Today's NYT's Circuits Section showed several new products, including an MP3 Player for the car, where "...the storage is managed by Compact flash II memory cards; the same slots can accommodate IBM's new micro drives for removable storage. the player has no on-board memory for audio storage, but it does have two card slots...." In addition, a news summary of a Video Blaster Webcam Go, a $150 digital-camera-to-go for a PC, "...with four megabytes of on-board memory...." And a low price UMAX camera. - Aus, as far as legal eagles, and to supplement Art's observations a day or two ago: What intrigued me most was SNDK's motion for partial summary judgement, which might convey one of several implications: (i) that part of SNDK's patent infringement claim is stronger (that part on which summary judgement is sought) than on other parts or patents; (ii) or that the patent(s) on which infringement is claimed are, in part, obvious from the filing and patented method of use or mechanism and, in part, non-obvious and must be supplemented with non-patented trade secrets or know-how; (iii) or that evidence extrinsic to the patent must be introduced and established (this would be the non-summary judgement portion of SNDK's case). Note that (ii) could be a function of (i) and (iii) could be a function of (ii) in the above queries. Disclosure: Patent law practice is not my field, is highly specialized; to boot, I have not read any of the underlying papers or motions. Perhaps you could provide me with a link? The motion for preliminary injunction would be common under the circumstances in an attempt to preserve the status quo (it doesn't really). The filing of the bond MIGHT be pro forma under the circumstances, or, as Art suggests, it might be an indication that the judge has made a preliminary evaluation of the case on the merits. I would have to read the motion practice and the judge's decisions thereon to get a better feel for which it might be. I agree with Art with respect to his point that, because litigation can so sap the resources, will and clarity of business plan of a wronged party, and that breaches of law or contracts, or patent infringement or coming to court with "dirty hands" can be so hard to establish conclusively, the "wronged party" often comes away with much less than it should and the party with "dirty hands" often gets away with much more than it should. Such are the imperatives of the commercial world, where parties are given "fair" leeway in the manner in which they compete. Courts are generally reluctant to impose economically harmful (crippling money damages) remedies or coercive sanctions (injunctions) on an ongoing business unless the evidence is relatively clear, preponderant and unencumbered by questionable or ambiguous conduct by the plaintiff. Unfortunately, a strategy of delay and time consuming motion practice can be a powerful strategy, foiling those who believe they have the "equities" on their side. Steve