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: orkrious who wrote (16657)	11/15/2000 9:40:32 PM
From: Craig Freeman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Jay, re: "Maybe the settlement does make sense." What's the best way to abbreviate "Whistling in the dark"? Craig

To: orkrious who wrote (16657)	11/16/2000 10:12:43 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 60323

Why didn't SNDK go for treble damages? Only a jury can award treble damages as part of a finding of intentional infringement. Besides the fact that a jury might NOT find intent to infringe, other factors to consider are the cost of a trial itself, the time it takes, and whether or not Lexar would be forced into bankruptcy by a really large judgment, making recovery almost impossible in the near term. Considering all these factors, a company is going to take whatever it thinks it can collect without too much hassle. Meanwhile, the rest of the industry knows for sure that SNDK has viable patents. Still, because the size of the settlement (the part we know about) is relatively small, I have to believe some important aspects of the settlement have not been disclosed. Art