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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IceShark who wrote (51880)	8/29/2000 8:50:19 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi IceShark; Re Polaroid vs Kodak, You are right, Zeev was wrong, as $900 million it was, and never more: A good reference: In 1976, Polaroid sued Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak") under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) to enjoin Kodak's alleged infringement of Polaroid's patents and to recover damages caused thereby. Approximately nine years thereafter, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled for Polaroid, enjoined Kodak, and reserved the issue of damages for later determination. See Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 641 F. Supp. 828 (D. Mass. 1985), aff'd, 789 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 850, 93 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1986). Following a hearing in 1990, that federal district court resolved the damages issue by determining lost profits to be the primary measure of damages and, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 284, by using the alternative "reasonable royalty" measure to set a floor below which the damages could not fall. See Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1711 (D. Mass. 1991). Accordingly, the final order awarded Polaroid damages of $233,055,432 for "lost profits," an additional $204,467,854 for "lost profits" determined on the basis of a "reasonable royalty," and prejudgment interest in the amount of $435,635,685.[1] ncinsider.com -- Carl P.S. I should mention that I disagreed completely with the "reasonable royalty" part of the legal ruling in this case. The amount should have been $204,467,855, but the judge was lenient. (G)

To: IceShark who wrote (51880)	8/29/2000 9:10:28 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Ice, I think that the reduction was in an appeal court (no jury), but the original jury verdict, if memory serves (it has been some time) was in the $6 Billions range, if it is very important, I have some acquaintances at Polaroid, and I may inquire if any one remembers the exact progression. In the case of Fonar, that happened in the last five years, and it is fresher in memory (the number paid was actually $149 MM there, and probably reduced as a result of an appeal as well, no idea what the jury awarded there). If you know people involved, please check with them on the Polaroid early Judgement, I am starting to worry about my aging memory (g). Zeev