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: w molloy who wrote (3953)	2/15/2000 4:17:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Molly. Let me ask you a question first. Are you Swedish? I'm asking for curiosity sake. I've visited the Scandinavian countries on ocassion. Specifically in Moloy Norway (nice bridge) there are those who've taken the name and transformed it. The name "molly" appears to be a Scandinavian derivative. There are those of acquaintance who have names similar to Molly who reside there. One thing that can be said very positively about the Swedes is that their education system is geared toward producing excellent engineering skills. math and scienes are high on their educational plate. I don't mind saying that I come from a long line of Norwegians and also married into a "Scandihuvian" estate. Knowing would simply help me understand your interest in the ERICY issue.

To: w molloy who wrote (3953)	2/15/2000 4:43:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Respond to of 5195

Molly, in reference to this statement in regard to the ERICY case posts that you listed. Both you and others have made this same statement: "To be honest, when the patent suit was first disclosed I noted that IDC did in fact lose a similar suit against MOT..." first off, the case of IDC against MOT was not "lost" by IDC. the judge left open areas which IDC had the right to challenge Motorola on in the future. I would not call giving IDC the ability to return and "clarify" these additional issues as having "lost". A main reason for this is that the issues which the judge left open were not claims which were independent. They were dependent claims - claims which are rooted in one or more previously honored US patents. An entire case can be built around the claims which the judge left open. It is doubtful that even the judge in that case knew to what extent he was "reopening" the case for further litigation. secondly, the case of ERICY vs. IDC is in regard to different, or separate issues than those dealt with in the Motorola case. The Motorola case was a broad issue; the ERICY case is dealing with specific violations. It is interesting that both IDC and ERICY were originally in talks to settle the issue but could not come to terms on the definition of terms or their application within a TDMA system. In a later post I will give you a short skinny on this case since it does interest me a great deal. Gus did write some information in regard to this case in an earlier post which you may find interesting - information taken directly from IDC's Markman hearing against ERICY. The full pallet of which has been published.