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 (3895)	2/13/2000 4:12:00 PM
From: w molloy	Respond to of 5195

Jim, I'm gratified when the insults start flying, because it indicates a fundamental weakness in my opponents argument. (debating 101). Hit the refresh button and you will see who has a lot riding on this litigation. The patents in question have been issued and challenged by ERICY I never said that the outcome of the litigation wasn't important to ERICY. If you care to wander over to the ERICY thread, you will see I have attempted to start a dialogue over there. Neutral investors should have access to both sides of the argument, dont you think? You imply that if IDC loses its business as usual. I dont think so. If IDC lose, that flushing sound you will hear is the value of your shares going down the crapper. If ERICY lose, the impact will be severe, but ERICY have more than one iron in the fire, and aren't as dependent as IDC are on IPR. w.

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3895)	2/13/2000 4:16:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

An invitation : Jim, Darrell, Bill Gus (when you return from the sin bin) Message 12856764 you should test your arguments against those who have a more vested interest in the outcome of the litigation than I do. w.