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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J Krnjeu who wrote (16635)	11/15/2000 8:49:25 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Respond to of 65232

Hello RMBS' lovers everywhere, messages.yahoo.com Re: itclyr by: itclyr 11/15/00 5:18 pm Msg: 190966 of 191050 I glanced at the filings, and generally thought RMBS had the better argument, but at this stage Infineon doesn't have a very high standard to avoid dismissal. I could probably dissect it quite a bit further and get some insight but at this preliminary stage it's probably not worth the effort; better to wait on the Judge's order deciding the motion, which will provide better information. I do think Infineon's infringement allegations may get dismissed. They didn't cite any caselaw to support their claims that a company who produces no product can be an infringer, and still didn't actually name the product that is the direct infringement in the allegation of contributory infringement. It is black letter patent law that you can't have contributory infringement (i.e., selling a major component to the infringer who incorporates it into the infringing product) without a direct infringer (the final infringing product). I got the distinct impression that Infineon's lawyers are just trying to keep some of their claims pending to provide them with some negotiating leverage against RMBS. ITC