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: TREND1 who wrote (12815)	7/11/2000 8:58:53 PM
From: Red Heeler	Respond to of 60323

"A trial has nothing to do with truth !" What kind of witness were you? CC

To: TREND1 who wrote (12815)	7/11/2000 9:00:39 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Larry, *"IT ISN'T OVER UNTIL IT'S OVER !"* ____________________________________ Could Lexar be that cavalier? I thought you were the expert in statistics and probability? I didn't imply that Lexar had no options or no chance of prevailing, just that the probability seems slim in this specific instance. Also the consequences of whatever path they decide to take are weighty. Lexar's legal representation needs to be put the likely outcomes in the balance. In this instance we are talking about patent nullification as the brass ring. Injunctions, the spectre of willful infringement & treble damages, imdemnification of customers ("Hey Kodak and Nikon, there's a recall on that last digital camera shipment!") and insolvency are what awaits you if you fall off the carousel. Have you testified in a patent nullification suit? If not I would say your court experience may be irrelevant here. Where the hell is Mike Gottesman. I am starting to worry about him. Ausdauer SanDisk...What does HAL think of the probability?

To: TREND1 who wrote (12815)	7/12/2000 12:04:42 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

IT ISN"T OVER UNTIL IT's OVER Larry, you are, of course, correct, and Yogi told us so. But, consider again Lexar's own disclosure prepared by counsel and approved by management: On March 30, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that certain of our products infringe one of the claims of SanDisk's patent. The court has set a trial date for October 23, 2000 to determine whether we infringe any of the other claims of the patent and whether the patent is valid. [T]o succeed [in invalidating] we will have to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the legal presumption that a patent is valid. This is a difficult burden of proof and, as a result, patents are found to be valid in the significant majority of cases. We have also agreed to indemnify customers from liability with respect to claimed infringement of the SanDisk patent, including their costs and fees of defending themselves in such suits. We are in the process of redesigning our products in an effort to avoid infringement of SanDisk's patent. However, we cannot assure you that these efforts will be successful. Even if successful, these efforts may not result in a competitive product and could require a substantial period of time to complete. Larry, consider that Lexar's lawyers, in effect, consider the patent nullification (in Aus's term) unlikely. Yet Lexar has agreed to indemnify its customers against any contributory infringement of SNDK's patents in order to do business them. Does this sound like a rational business plan? Again, the court has already ruled in favor of SNDK. The invalidity portion of the trial is technical in nature and not likely to get caught up in Twelve Angry Men and other trial-related ambiguities. Steve