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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cordob who wrote (160442)	2/27/2002 11:12:23 AM
From: cordob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ah here we got it, probably to do with mirror bit after all: Saifun has developed a leading edge Non Volatile Memory (NVM) technology. The Saifun NROMTM revolutionary technology places 2 physical bits per cell, enabling production of the most cost-effective, best performing NVM products in the market. Cheers Cor

To: cordob who wrote (160442)	2/27/2002 11:31:11 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 186894

Cordob, I'm interested in how they found out. If you are familiar with NVM technology, here is a link of AMD's recent patent applications that were published (Remember, these aren't patents, but patent applications) appft1.uspto.gov dave

To: cordob who wrote (160442)	2/27/2002 11:33:12 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Could this be what they are referring to? appft1.uspto.gov;

To: cordob who wrote (160442)	2/27/2002 11:42:02 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Cordob, This is quite different than Intel v. Intergraph. I think the sequence of events happened in this fashion (I'm going from memory, so I could be wrong). 1) Intel had a broad cross licensing agreement with NSM. 2) NSM sold a portion of their patent portfolio to Intergraph, which included those "Clipper" patents. 3) Intergraph sued Intel for patent infringement. 4) Intel then asked for all confidential documents to be returned, and Intel argued that they had a "pre-existing" license for those "Clipper" patents, therefore they could not be infringing. 5) The judge over-ruled Intel on both counts, i.e. Intel must continue to provide Intergraph access to documents and that Intel did not have a license for those "clipper" patents. I'm not sure if the judge has ruled that Intel has infringed on these patents. I can understand that Intel didn't have a license to these patents, but I can't understand why Intel must continue to provide documentation to Intergraph. Just doesn't make sense. However, this "type" of suit is much different than the allegations of fraud.