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 : IATV-ACTV Digital Convergence Software-HyperTV -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mike.com who wrote (12963)	10/31/2001 12:44:01 PM
From: richard badauskas	Respond to of 13157

The market has assumed that the Markham hearing was favorable towards ACTV. The filing has not yet reached the public record so the content of the judge's ruling remains out of public sight. Assuming that the market is correct in its interpretation; What follows??? A jury trial is only several months away, as early as January. The ball is now in the big gorilla's court. What does Disney do?? If he does not settle very quickly he faces the prospect of economic and punative damages (in this case triple damages from a jury that probably has a distaste for big gorilla's that stomp around and eat other small fry's best banana's without offering any compensation) and payment of the plaintiff's legal fees ($1M per year). What type of numbers are we talking about??? DIS has employed the disputed patents to promote some of their biggest money spinners like Monday Night Football and Millionaire as well as other properties like ESPN. So the numbers we are talking about are "substantial" before we get to punative damages. I have not got a clue what figure could be conjured?? Most likely a cash sum and a continuing license fee. Then a discussion will follow with all of the other companies that decided to join the big gorilla. We are talking a lot of bananas. This will have a very significant impact on the ACTV balance sheet and the market's perception of the ACTV business.

To: mike.com who wrote (12963)	11/1/2001 10:38:59 AM
From: richard badauskas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13157

An abbreviated copy of the judges ruling is now floating around the web. It comprises a list of interpretations of terms used in various ACTV patents. My sense is that these interpretations agree with ACTV's interpretation and legally reinforce ACTV's patents. DIS argued that the ACTV patents were too wide to be enforceable. DIS had to then argue the "legal semantics" of various terms in the hope that they could find legal technicalities to bolster their defence. The judge did not say they were too wide. I think that this basically defeats the DIS defence. He went through DIS claims and interpreted each term they contested basically in favor of ACTV. My sense is that the case now moves on to its next phase (and quickly). Someone with a legal background in patent law may be able to get a fix on the ramifications of the various interpretations.