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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (4818)	12/2/2002 2:22:15 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Tell everybody here how you concluded that IDCC would be most likely be able to use a ruling of patent infringement--which is not even final yet--in one case to prove patent infringement in another one? How dumb can you get? LOL! Who said that the ruling of patent infringement in HRS vs ERICY is going to be used to prove infringement in another one! I realize that you are the resident idiot and laughingstock of the Nokia board, but are you really this dumb? First, I distinctly said that HRS was able to use a 1994 ERICY internal memo to support its *winning* argument that ERICY had a history of being cavalier with other people's IP. I did NOT say that HRS used that same memo to prove infringement because only an idiot like you would use that argument, you pompous dope! LOL! The fair inference is still that IDCC will be able to use the same 1994 memo in the jury trial which starts in February and will most likely use similar arguments about ERICY's historical pattern of being cavalier with other people's IP. The question of whether IDCC can use the HRS jury decision to make a stronger argument is up in the air. Second, the patent owner only needs to demonstrate infringement of one claim, whether by literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents, to win its case. In the post-Festo HRS vs ERICY trial, HRS was able to persuade the jury that ERICY literally infringed two claims and infringed two other claims under the doctrine of equivalents. That gives you an idea of the wide range of arguments that they used to prosecute their case and that gives you an idea of how they used that 1994 internal memo to persuade the jury that, notwithstanding ERICY's solid internal patent infringement opinion, ERICY was also guilty of willful infringement. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to understand that the legal hurdle for a finding of willful infringment is a fairly significant one. Don't you get tired of losing arguments like this? Don't you get tired of losing money, period?