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: Gus who wrote (4856)	12/10/2002 10:21:41 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

You really make me laugh, Gussie. Often wrong but never, ever, in doubt. Stay away from the legal stuff, Gussie, before your fellow IDCC longs sue you for practicing without a license or for abject incompetence and legal malpractice. )You can't rebut the fact that the judge did overturn the jury verdict in favor of Mitsubishi. Easy as pie, big boy. Did you read the Court of Appeals decision I posted, you big, bad Oliver Wendell Holmes, you? Didn't think so. Can you read the last line: "Affirmed." That means, dummy, that the Trial Court's action was upheld. Now, by the numbers, what exactly was the Trial Court's action that the Court of Appeals affirmed? Let's go to the top of the Court of Appeals decision (I know, I know, this is like teaching a first-grader, but what can I do with a dumb-ass like Gussie?). Read this directly from the Court of Appeals decision a/k/a the horse's mouth: The district court entered judgment on the jury verdicts and denied all post-trial motions. We affirm the judgment. law.emory.edu That dummy, means that the Trial Court did not overturn the jury verdict, and entered a judgment in favor of Ampex per the jury's findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, i.e., did exactly what the trial court did. What you got to say about that, Gussie? Please respond, I'm having too much fun with you. How can anyone take you seriously on the legal end of complex patent and trademark matters when you can't even get to first base on the most rudimentary aspects of a decision? You stick your foot in your mouth every time I've seen you pronounce on these matters. I must say, however, that it is cheap entertainment.

To: Gus who wrote (4856)	12/10/2002 1:22:39 PM
From: w molloy	Respond to of 5195

Stock chat spins into libel case Published December 9, 2002 WLS Radio announcer Jay Marvin, known for his provocative, mile-a-minute banter over the airwaves, isn’t talking for once. But Janice Shell, the woman Marvin is suing in part for posting nasty messages about him on Internet message boards, is no longer lurking. “I can’t discuss the case,” Shell said during a visit to the Chicago Tribune last week. “But I can tell you it’s the kind that judges hate – a lot of he said, she said.” While Marvin vs. Shell might not set blockbuster precedent or inspire an episode of “The Practice,” it could shape emerging case law that’s bound to take some of the bite out of electronic correspondence. Chat rooms and message boards are at the core of countless virtual communities where users casually trade advice, information and sometimes highly personal insults. “It’s clear that people think they can say things online that they could never say to someone’s face,” said Jennifer Granick, director of Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. “It’s creating a real problem that more people are beginning to confront. You may think of it as virtual chitchat, but you may have to live with the ramifications of what you’ve said.” While journalists know the legal consequences of defaming or libeling someone, the average person might be surprised to know that Congress and the courts have held online musings to the same standards as newspapers and magazines, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles. “The rules don’t focus on the medium, but the message,” Volokh said. Marvin’s suit alleges libel and slander against Shell, an online gadfly loved and loathed for her snooping into corporate endeavors in the world of so-called penny stocks. Two other regulars on the RagingBull.com and SiliconInvestor.com message boards known only by their user names also were named in the suit. When message board operators refused to divulge their identities, District Court Judge Blanche M. Manning dismissed the case. Marvin re-filed and focused only on Shell. “If I had it to do all over, I wouldn’t have used my real name from the start,” Shell said. “But back in ’96, practically everyone used their real names. That openness got me some press that I wouldn’t have gotten if I had been anonymous … but I don’t know that I wouldn’t trade that now.” Marvin and Shell, an art historian living in Bryn Mawr, Pa., got into an online shouting match after Marvin gave a friend $10,000 to wage another legal battle in which Shell was subpoenaed to testify. The money helped pay for a private investigator to look into Shell’s background. Shell and her online network of anonymous buddies fought back by posting insults and taunts. Marvin conceded several months ago that he has used various aliases to post replies. Marvin states in court records that the give-and-take finally spun out of control when Shell and her friends wrote that he gave his friend money he had taken from the radio station. Hundred of references to his mental stability and sexuality didn’t help, either, court records suggest. Marvin filed suit shortly after Shell contacted Zemira Jones, president and general manager of WLS Radio. “Do I regret contacting Marvin’s employer about his deplorable behavior?” Shell asked. “Absolutely not.” Marvin and Shell met for settlement talks last week and failed to reach an agreement. Shell has asked Manning to dismiss the case. A decision is expected next month. More online: The Electronic Frontier Foundation provides a primer on libel and online communication at eff.org. Also, find out how a California court's decision regarding a fired employee's mass messaging to Intel workers could affect e-mail for everyone. chicagotribune.com.