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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3839)	2/10/2000 4:29:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Like I said , If they didn't infringe then why did they seek to invalidate the patents. I can't believe this has gone over your head too. First, I am not arguing that Ericy didn't infringe, but that their challenge of the validity of the patents does not implicitly imply that they did infringe. I don't know what I can say to make this simple enough for you to understand..... Even if they believe they didn't infringe their is still a chance of an unfavorable ruling. Therefore, the best defense is a thorough defense and this would include an attempt to declare the patent invalid which, contrary to the nameless lawyers opinion, would be standard practice if Ericy thought there was any chance to have the patent declared invalid. DuH! The fact that this was unsuccessful does not diminish it's value as a strategy next time. Patent courts can be unpredictable, just what part of this don't you understand? Bux