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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (7026)	8/30/2000 4:18:23 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Cirruslar Re...<<Intel is expected to license its chipset technology to others under the condition that chipset makers have no part of AMD." Is that legal? <<<<< No, that is definitely illegal, and is called Restraint of trade. Speaking of Intel, Intel is up to it's old shenanigans by suing BDCM for patent infringement.

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (7026)	8/30/2000 4:25:20 PM
From: survivin	Respond to of 275872

Cirruslvr, re: Is that legal? Simple answer--NO. This is known as tying-out, rather than the more common tying-in. As for illegality, it is not per se illegal for a company to insist on an exclusive supplier agreement before entering a relationship. But, when the product at issue has received a monopoly in the form of a patent and the owner has market power, the courts will not allow an unauthorized expansion of this grant. If this article is accurate, intc runs a real risk of not being able to enforce any relevant patents, since this behavior constitutes patent misuse and is in direct counter to public interest by stifling competition and innovation. In 1988, Congress enacted the Patent Misuse Reform Act eliminating findings of per se patent misuse in tying arrangements. However, when a company possesses market power (i.e. company's actions can influence the price)in the relevant market involved in the tying arrangement, patent misuse remains a valid defense to infringement actions. There is no doubt intc has market power in the chipset business. The relevant passage from the Act is at 35 U.S.C. §271(d)(5). Ironically, it is conceivable intc may use this inability to defend as a shield from any charges of bad faith rmbs may have in regards to their exclusivity contracts. Welcome to the wonderful world of patent litigation. survivin