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: Zeev Hed who wrote (51884)	8/29/2000 9:50:11 PM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

I'm not going to verify with old friends, because it is coming back to me. I was interested in the case because some associates were involved in the damages determination and I had some similar issues in a case I was working on. I think it was a bifurcated trial, infringement, then a damages segment. It was also a bench trial, at least for damages. The judge's opinion was pretty scathing on some of the damage experts and was final, never modified other than adding in some more interest for time elapsed. No willful damages were ever assessed or reversed on appeal. This did go to the the DC circuit court (usually the last word on patent cases) after infringement, and I think the Supreme Court which denied cert. That was it, I believe. In any event, the point I was making when we started is that willfulness is pretty rare in patent cases if the infringer has done things correctly. And I believe MU will have done so. They have been through a bunch of legal tussles and are not exactly new babes to the legal landscape.