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: The Prophet who wrote (73205)	5/18/2001 5:27:26 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

TP, Would you please put some flesh on the bones of your second point for me. I can agree with the point that any cause of action presents a mixed question of law and fact, and assume that you are not saying that the jury gets to decide the "law" bits. But this point: If, for example, the court of appeals finds that it is legally permissible to amend claims to include inventions covered by the original specification in the original patent, then it would difficult to support a legal conclusion of fraud, even if the jury purported to make a factual finding to that effect. I am afraid I don't know what you are saying here. Surely you are not stating that the jury was/could be asked to make a factual "finding" as to the "legality" of making such a patent amendment? If you explain how that legal issue relates to the findings of the jury and the allegations of the counterclaim it would be helpful. I assume you are NOT saying that because a patent may be legally amended in such fashion in some circumstances, that it necessarily follows that such amendments must always be legal in any circumstance. What I don't see is how the question of the lawfulness of a certain type of patent amendment relates to the fraudulent acts the jury was asked to determine. For instance if we obey the rules of the road, it is legal for us to drive to the store. But if we drive to the store for the purpose of stealing everything that isn't nailed down, even if we adhere to the rules of the road we have illegally used the vehicle in question in the commission of a felony in many jurisdictions. It would be a rare trial on such charge in which the manner in which the vehicle was operated became relevant to anything other than sentencing. So what am I missing here? 0\|0