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: Michael A. Gottesman who wrote (9957)	3/31/2000 7:54:00 AM
From: Ausdauer	Respond to of 60323

*HOLY SH!&@T!!!** Mike, Snuggle up to your computer monitor so I can give you a big kiss, baby!!! <EOM>

To: Michael A. Gottesman who wrote (9957)	3/31/2000 8:05:00 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Michael, can this be appealed? Jay

To: Michael A. Gottesman who wrote (9957)	3/31/2000 10:53:00 AM
From: The Prophet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

YOWZA! Great snoop work! When do you think it was first posted publicly? Any news on the extent of the ruling, e.g., was injunctive relief granted. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but injunctive relief would not be stayed on appeal, right? Prophet

To: Michael A. Gottesman who wrote (9957)	3/31/2000 10:53:00 AM
From: The Prophet	Respond to of 60323

To: Michael A. Gottesman who wrote (9957)	3/31/2000 3:13:00 PM
From: Tumbleweed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Lexar IPO So, what happens now? Has the judge published a penalty? Presumably the IPO has to wait until the penalty is published? And of course though they may appeal, I wouldnt have thought an IPO with a negative court judgement sitting over it looked like a winner <g> Joe

To: Michael A. Gottesman who wrote (9957)	4/1/2000 12:29:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 60323

Michael, thanks for keeping the thread apprised of the progress of the Lexar proceeding. I agree with your response to the poster who compared the March 28 date of Judge Breyer's Memorandum and Order with the March 29 date of Lexar's filing. The decision (Memorandum and Order), you will note, was entered yesterday, the first date officially available. SEC filings are usually prepared the day before the actual filing date (or increasingly commonly with EDGAR, the day of filing), so it is likely, even with Lexar's counsel attempting to be diligent, that they were not aware of the decision. But Lexar was aware of the approximate timing of the issuance of the decision. Judge Breyer's decision, when it is read and its contents analyzed, and depending on same, may likely have a very damaging effect on Lexar's ability to go forward with the offering. The underwriters and their counsel will need to assess the impact on their client's future business prospects. Not a happy scenario for Lexar or its bankers. Now, part of the foregoing assessment as to the damage done to Lexar's ability to go forward, of course, rests on the decision itself. You know far more of the specific context of the claims and counterclaims than I. I note that each claim covered by the Judge's decision involved a motion for summary judgment: this means a finding of law w/r/t/w the facts are either not in dispute or that the parties have stipulated as to the facts. Let's skip the denial of Lexar's motions for summary judgment and focus on SNDK's motion that was granted. It war for partial summary judgment of contributory infringement. Do we know what "part" was decided and what "part" remains to be decided, in terms of the substance, the materiality, the period of the alleged infringement, etc.? In other words, do you know what element or aspect of the controller in SNDK's patent was covered by the motion that was granted? Does this grant of motion in effect mean that SNDK has won not only the battle but the war? Before I mislead any on the thread (and I am NOT a litigator or trial attorney), it should be stressed that the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment IS appealable. Depending on the losing party's overall business/litigation strategy, Lexar may move immediately to appeal (more on that in a second), may opt to initiate or agree to settlement discussions with SNDK, or may employ a strategy of doing both, to put a card back in its hand. Part of this may depend on what "part" of SNDK's motion for partial summary judgment was granted. Lexar may also try various less seemly trial tactics. If Lexar is desparate to see its offering go forward, and if Judge Breyer's written decision is at all subject to ambiguity or interpretation, Lexar might opt to appeal immediately and use that strategem to salvage the prospectus disclosures (that is to say, Lexar can hardly go to market with a prospectus that states that "oh yeah, the core of our product line was just found to infringe a competitor's patents"). Thus coupled with (i) a statement in the SEC filing that Lexar believes the Judge's decision was erroneous and that it "intends vigorously to contest and appeal the decision" and (ii) its patent lawyers' reiteration to and persuasion of Lexar's underwriters that the lawyers' believevthat Lexar will win in the end (assuming this is either true or can be "stagemanaged"), this will "put the best face" on the new legal developments. The SEC filing will be amended to reflect the Judge's decision and Lexar's intent to appeal. Even so, in that event, the prospectus will be a much weakened selling document from the point of view of Lexar's roadshow. Note too, there is the issue of the circumstances under which SNDK will move to enjoin Lexar. I don't know any of the facts or decision, but SNDK will probably weigh among several strategies at this time. Just some food for thought. Steve

To: Michael A. Gottesman who wrote (9957)	4/1/2000 3:06:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 60323

Just wait until Lexar gets the bill for attorney fees, disbursements, compensatory costs, and other damages. It is very unusual, as far as I can tell (because I'm not a lawyer), for a court to grant summary judgment, instead of allowing the case to proceed to trial. It suggests that Lexar never had a strong case, and didn't even have a factual basis for defending itself.