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 : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zed who wrote (7169)	11/16/1999 1:49:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Zed, Curiouser and curiouser as you say...I also believe there is some kind of dispute going on between CTXS and Insignia Solutions (sym:INSGY). I don't know any details of either dispute, but I have to say, it doesn't surprise me considering the success of Citrix. I even expect shareholder lawsuits to be filed next time CTXS goes into one of it's regular declines. It's a shame it has to happen. MikeM(From Florida)

To: Zed who wrote (7169)	11/16/1999 4:12:00 PM
From: David Perfette	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Zed, where did the article come from? eom

To: Zed who wrote (7169)	11/16/1999 6:28:00 PM
From: David Perfette	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9068

Regarding the "Curious and Curiouser" article. When Microsoft sucked up Citrix' multiuser NT technology into NT 4.0 and beyond, it also acquired rights - for a much cheaper price - to Prologue's multiuser NT technology as well, but not apparently the work that Exodus had done on its own and filed with the US Patent Office as the "Method and System for Dynamic Translation between Different Graphical User Interface Systems." A couple of questions come to mind. First off, I can understand patenting the technology behind the idea, but what this article may be implying is that the whole concept is patented. This doesn't make any sense. On the other hand if it is a technology issue, which would make more sense, then that brings up a couple of other issues. As I recall, Citrix's has a patent on its ICA protocal. Does this or does this not encompass everything from point A to point B? If so, then there can not be two patents on the same technology. Also, if it is a technology issue, and if there is an infringement on this technology, you would think between AUGI and Exodus, one of them would have had the brains to realize this and have taken steps to capitalize on it, rather then folding up the tent. Further still, I would think whatever technology they are claiming as their own, is probably very old and may have little if anything in common to Citrix's current technology and therefore would only effect earlier iterations like Winframe. The above quoted statement as well as the mention of IBM and SUN as other targets of Graphon, leads me to suspect they are actually trying to lay claim to a patent on the whole thin client concept. Citrix, IBM and SUN to my knowledge have no thin client technology in common. Well, perhaps IBM and SUN do, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure there is no common thread between all three. IMHO, claim sounds ridiculous. As always, opinions very welcomed! -David P.