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 (8814)	1/25/2000 10:23:00 PM
From: Michael A. Gottesman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Aus: This is really talking in the blind because the info from the judges clerk was so vague but this is a possible scenario: During licensing discussion which fell apart, mention was made by Lexar employees of knowingly infringing (possible brings it to the level of "wilful"). Now, it is not uncommon for parties to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements during the process of licensing discussions. If the above is the case, and SNDK filed a brief for Summary Judgment including statements made while parties were subject to a confidentiality agreement, then Lexar may be arguing that these statements are inadmissable. Lexar may argue that this portion of the plaintiff's (SNDK's) claim or brief in support thereof, should be stricken from the record as being confidential. Of course, it this were the case, then any infringing party could protect themselves from subsequent claims by disclosing knowledge of infringement while under a confidentiality agreement. To me, such a ruling shuts the gate after the horse is already out of the barn. And speaking of barns, I may not be hitting the side of one with the previous exposition of conjecture. But who knows. Mike G.