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 (53943)	9/18/2000 8:23:53 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 93625

Zeev, None of the details of the Hitachi agreement have been made public. Scumbria

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (53943)	9/18/2000 8:25:32 PM
From: chic_hearne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: My friend, in the court, it not what you said that count Zeev, As I remember it, all companies that have signed have inked in the deals that they don't recognize the patents as valid. It would be dumb as hell to not do it this way if you planned to fight the patents later on. Where is Carl when when you need a good link? chic

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (53943)	9/18/2000 11:08:38 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 93625

Re:They can argue until they are blue in the face that they signed the Agreement because of the future merger According to press releases, the agreement explicitly stated that the validity of the patents was not recognized. That's not "hearsay". If your contention were correct, the 90+% of the lawsuits that settle instead of going to trial would have to go to trial and our legal system would collapse. Paying off a nuisance lawsuit does not create a legal precedent, nor does entering into a brief contract which explicitly states that it does not recognize something, do the opposite. C'mon Zeev, you know this! Regards, Dan