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 (3955)	2/15/2000 4:02:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Respond to of 5195

Molly; Infineon is obviously looking for a home for their own model. he's obviously referring to ERICY. ERICY denied this is an earlier statement, nonetheless. there are many power consumption models. i'll post a link that helps provide some clarity on this issue if you're interested.

To: w molloy who wrote (3955)	2/15/2000 5:57:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5195

molly. you may find it of interest that ERICY filed it's brief according to the following link: ragingbull.com and a few comments in reference to that brief: ragingbull.com "First, InterDigital routinely ignores claim language defining portions of the recited functions. Second, IDC ignores necessary components of the structure described in the patents for performing the recited functions. Third, IDC seeks to have the Special Master rule on structural ?equivalents thereof? under 35USC 112, par 6." Firstly, ERICY is claiming that IDC is ignoring ERICY?s claim language, not IDC?s. Secondly, ERICY is claiming that IDC is ignoring necessary components of ERICY?s system, not IDC?s. Thirdly, ERICY can not and does not appear willing to discuss the merits of IDC?s claims of ?structural equivalents?. Instead, they want the issue of ?structural equivalents? taken from the Special Master and given to the jury. ?Structural Equivalents? are a principle element upon which IDC?s case is built! The whole reason the Special Master exists is to assist the jury in defining technologically sensitive issues ? to give the jury his opinion on such issues. What are these ERICY boys drinking? Can you imagine giving a lay jury the burden of defining structurally equivalent technological means of form and function? What judge would commit to this folly? IDC?s case is built upon structural equivalents as are MOST intellectual property cases. Based on prior history of Special Master rulings, it is doubtful that a conscientious judge would rule in favor of such a motion. It is ingenious that one of ERICY's main bases for arguing against the IDC claim is that they want the issue of "structural equivalents" moved from the Special Master and to the lay jury. This is like saying that the Professor of Calculus at a University should not be given the opportunity to determine who developed Calculus first, Fermat, Roberval or Newton? Instead this unique opportunity should be placed in the hands of lay jury who is abundantly and "legally" more qualified on the issue of "structural equivalents."