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 : Drillbits & Bottlerockets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (10486)	5/9/2001 3:28:13 PM
From: Stoctrash	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15481

not totally sure...saw it on SI.

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (10486)	5/9/2001 3:42:25 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15481

Fraud????? No lie? Nice pun...<g> I am going to have to get a hold of that case and take a close look at it....there is a legal doctrine called "fraud on the patent office" which is quite a bit different than fraud in the usual sense...I wonder if that is what the decision said....I dunno, I haven't seen or read about it yet.... As for being "guilty" of fraud, in a civil case the standards for proving fraud are easier to meet, and you just have to pay damages (or get precluded from enforcing contracts and the like)....isn't like criminal fraud, where you can do time...... Does anybody have a link to the court decisions or know what court and date are involved? TIA