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 (9199)	2/17/2000 8:52:00 AM
From: Michael A. Gottesman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 60323

Thread: The latest posting on the docket of the case appears to indicate a discovery dispute relating to an "opinion letter." Its tough to know without copies of the court documents (many of which are sealed by protective order), but it appears that an opinion letter was issued, probably by counsel and probably relating to the potential for infringement. SanDisk made a motion to determine the names of those parties that read or reviewed the "opinion letter." Lexar is probably arguing that the opinion letter is work product and/or protected by the attorney-client priviledge. If appears the Court ordered that Lexar provide the names of the parties who read/reviewed the opinion letter. However, the Court left open whether the actual letter would be discoverable by Sandisk. So, based on the Edgar filing by Lexar, and whats in the docket, it may well be that the "wilfull" portion of the infringement claim is a pretty strong claim. Obviously, Lexar is not a profitable company based on the Edgar filing and they are attempting to obtain an influx of greatly needed cash by going public. It would be interesting to see how much they have spend on advertising? Also, in view of the terrible financials, it would probably be difficult for Lexar to acquire more capacity to improve their bottom line.