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: pala who wrote (8101)	11/13/1999 8:36:00 PM
From: Michael A. Gottesman	Respond to of 60323

Doug: Having no expertise in IP, Patent or Trademark, it would be unprofessional for me to render an opinion. Additionally, without access to any of the court documents, it is especially difficult for me to give any opinion as to the strengths/weaknesses/merits of SNDK's claims. This is not meant to be a cop out or sidestep but the only information I have is that available from the company or in public documents that are available. Some posts ago I mentioned that if someone on the thread had a connection to Cindy (I forget her last name but she is a VP), that it would not be an unreasonable request for an investor to ask for information about the order for injunction that was supposed to be agreed upon and submitted by counsel. I believe someone on the thread has some connection or contact with the VP. Perhaps it was Aus. The fact that the court has called for a form of order to be submitted may imply some strength in SNDK's position, but without seeing the actual injunction, it is impossible to draw an educated conclusion. I know this may some like "lawyer" doubletalk to some of you, but one can not blindly draw conclusions without the facts. I have been able to gleen from the public records that Lexar has no intention of 'playing dead." They are vigorously defending the claim by requesting that SNDK post a bond if the injunction issues (as allowed by Federal Court Rule). However, the recent press release which was rebuffed by SNDK was conveniently released as SNDK was pursuing a public offering. Since the events covered by the press release were several weeks old and were irrelevant to the SNDK claim, it would appear that Lexar may have issued the release to effect investor confidence at the time of the public offering. Whether this type of action is an indication of the weakness of Lexar's defenses, I leave you to decide. IMHO, it may be an indication that Lexar recognizes the weakness of their defenses, and that if negotiations are still ongoing between the companies, Lexar is attempting to be as big of a "thorn in the side" as possible to gain bargaining position. If an injunction issues which severely limits Lexar, then a settlement may be in the offing. Mike G.