SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Craig Freeman who wrote (8085)11/12/1999 7:30:00 AM
From: Ausdauer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 60323
 
Craig,

re: bonds

The current practice as I understand it is to request the plaintiff to file bond in case the preliminary injunction imposed against the defendant is lifted (after a final judgement in favor of the defendant).

SanDisk will be required by the court to post bond if the injunction is to be enforced.

My question is whether one could forego an injunction (domestic product embargo) but allow Lexar to create an escrow account where they are required to deposit licensing fees until a settlement is reached. It would be less punitive than having product sit in a warehouse gathering dust and becoming outdated. Also, if an injunction is enforced the OEM shipments would need to be recalled, too.

Mike Gottesman stated that there is no precedent for something like this. In which case...

...bring on the injunction.

This is a test case for SanDisk which means it is vital to enforcing the CF card assembly IP. I don't think they selected to involve Lexar in this the case for any other reason than the strength of the SanDisk position; the relative lack of core flash memory patents owned by the defendant and the behavior of the Lexar CEO (ex-employee). Also, I think there are enough second suppliers in existence currently. So if Lexar just evaporates I don't think anybody will be crying about it.

An injunction is really going to hurt.

Ouch!!!

Aus