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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jmac who wrote (92021)	11/9/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

I don't think Pauls opinion of Attorneys will change...even in light of this revelaton. Jim

To: jmac who wrote (92021)	11/9/1999 10:27:00 PM
From: exhon2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

jmac: re >>Unbelievable. Intel will put forward their own witness as to how much should be paid if, in fact, they are found to have violated the patents.<< Easy!!..........................$50,000.00 Regards, Greg

To: jmac who wrote (92021)	11/9/1999 11:09:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

jmac - Re: "It is was it wrong with America" Lawyers making a money grab. Paul

To: jmac who wrote (92021)	11/9/1999 11:11:00 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: The explanation of the TechSearch patent suit against Intel The explanation of the what happened in this law suit is totally FUBAR. The only things that are correct are that some attorneys bought the patents cheap and now want billions from Intel. And the bankruptcy judge did whack Intel for making an end run on the attorney buyers and trying to disqualify the purchase in bankruptcy court so Intel could buy the patents. That would neuter the law suit. Hint: when you buy something for $50 K at the flea market, it ain't worth billions of dollars. And if it is, you stole it. "that the plaintiff (this group of attorneys) called an expert witness to testify" Nope. The 10Q reports that the Plaintiff's whore, excuse me, the Plaintiff's damages expert "claimed" damages in the range of 2 to 8 billion $$. This is not a witness testifying. No trial is happening or on the horizon. Probably the claim was on a piece of paper in the patent law suit. Conveniently, the "claim" was made in Oct of 99 just in time for Intel to report the "claim" in its 10Q. This timing was almost surely intended to pressure Intel into throwing a few million dollars at the attorney owners to get rid of this claim and avoid the 10Q reporting. When it comes to off-the-wall patent claims, Intel can be like the Israeli government: "We don't negotiate with terrorists." See the Intergraph law suit for another example.

To: jmac who wrote (92021)	11/10/1999 2:23:00 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: "Intel did something incredibly stupid. They formed an offshore shell corporation to represent them at the hearing and hid its true identity until someone dug it up and brought it to the attention of the bankruptcy judge. That judge was so incensed" Jmac, Do you know the name of the offshore corporation or who the officers or directors are? This sounds horrible. RE: "I got this information in a private message from another SI member." I wonder why they didn't feel comfortable enough to share this information with the entire thread? The accusation regarding offshore corporation sounds quite serious. Clarification would be appreciated - i.e. what was the exact relationship of the offshore corporation with Intel? Amy J