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: david james who wrote (14587)	9/7/2000 9:18:08 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Lawsuits "The court further denied Lexar's request that SanDisk make no further representations stating or implying that SanDisk CompactFlash cards are faster than Lexar CompactFlash cards in the following camera models: Hewlett Packard C20, Epson Photo PC 700, Kodak DC120 and Kodak DC210." The basis of this lawsuit is some obscure table that no average consumer would ever be able to find on their own. At that time "release-to-click" times were on the order of 5 seconds or longer indicating the computational power of the host device was the major roadblock. Just look at the cameras in question and realize that this suit dates back at least two years, a time when CompactFlash sales were quite unimpressive. It seems doubtful that Lexar lost any significant revenues as a result. Since that time (with the flash memory market sizzling hot) Lexar has been able to garner a significant piece of the flash memory card aftermarket (per the CEO's recent interview), so it seems unlikely this chart had any material effect on Lexar's prospects. I think SanDisk was disallowed use of the chart in question based on a subsequent court decision. No big deal. The chart was outdated a few months after it was released anyway. IMHO, SanDisk has never tried to market its CompactFlash on the basis of write speed. We have bemoaned this fact on our thread ad nauseum. The above lawsuit seems nothing more than a fly in the ointment. It is a minor distraction aimed at taking the spotlight off of the real lawsuit, Lexar's infringement of SanDisk's '987 patent. Ausdauer

To: david james who wrote (14587)	9/8/2000 6:25:49 PM
From: Theo Karantsalis	Respond to of 60323

Dave, Nice dig. I am convinced that people file legal action for one reason: greed. This may stem from anger, jealousy, or the inability to make money any other way. In the case of Lexar, it sounds like a combination of all three. It is a weak argument when one states that they filed an action based on "principle." As far as the "analysts" are concerned, most remind me of the character, "Rivera," in Scarface, as he acted fidgety and uncontrollable before getting snuffed by Tony Montana.