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 (51905)	8/30/2000 12:28:04 AM
From: IceShark	Respond to of 93625

Zeev, the trial was split into 2 parts. The first involved whether there was infringement or not. I'm not sure if that was a jury or bench trial, but infringement was found. The second part was to determine damages and that was a bench trial (just the Judge deciding) which ended as I described and had no willful punitive component. I don't think you will find the opinion on anything online outside of West Law, etc., which will cost money. You can find plenty of articles by doing a google search and the one Carl found dealt with the tax consequences to Polaroid for the total award. They must have been trying to claim it wasn't ordinary income. Give it up man, there were no willful punies. -g-