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 : Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates -- VSEA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (1589)	1/23/2003 5:46:33 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 1929

VSEA EXPRESSES REMORSE, BRIAN, REMORSE! "They have published a book, apparently being distributed in many local outlets, ... They have also published large advertisements in local newspapers containing photographs of Respondents ... Appellants admit posting more than 20,000 messages about Respondents on various Internet web sites. ... [recent news article re 20,000 postings].) ... In mid-December, Appellants published advertisements in several local newspapers for the ostensible purpose of drawing attention to their book, ... Each advertisement includes a photograph of Felch, Dick Levy (CEO of Varian Medical), or Dick Aurelio (CEO of Varian Semiconductor), as well as one of the following statements printed in large, boldface letters: Why were Varian restrooms secretly videotaped right under this executive's nose? This VARIAN executive secretly videotaped company restrooms! ... Be Careful Who You SLAPP is the first book to expose this and other disturbing events in VARIAN...." ... Respondents acted within their rights in seeking to halt the distribution of Appellants' book and advertisements.... Good faith, comprising lack of intent to violate a court order and willingness to perform at the time of the contempt hearing is a defense to a charge of contempt. (E.g. 8 Witkin, California Procedure, Enforcement of Judgment § 345, p. 351; Uhler v. Superior Court (1953) 117 Cal. App.2d 147, 154.) Respondents lack any interest to violate any court order or otherwise offend this Court. For all the reasons stated above, Respondents believed, and continue to believe, that their actions were entirely lawful and justified. Moreover, as evidence of their good faith, Respondents have temporarily suspended contacting additional third parties regarding Appellants’ book and advertisements, despite the fact that Appellants apparently found new distributions for these defamatory works. (Poppe Decl. ¶ 14. Loran Decl. ¶3.) Respondents will comply with any ruling this Court should make, although Respondents urge the Court to rule that their actions were proper and they may continue to contact other third parties in a like manner. Because Respondents have acted in good faith at all times, they should not be held in contempt even if this Court were to conclude that their earlier actions were improper.... Dated: January 21, 2003 Respectfully submitted, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP By: signed Matthew H. Poppe PILLSBURY WINTHROP LLP By: signed Thomas V. Loran III" geocities.com

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (1589)	1/26/2003 9:30:27 AM
From: robert b furman	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 1929

Hi Brian, This is the third time this week I've read about inventories being very low. Varian sold off some inventory that was written off - as in scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just this week Motorola -A laggard in the past indicated they had a record low inventory 6 1/2 week supply of chips. Can't recall the other. I think the momentum of inventory sell off is growing.This should put us well into a ramp up by Q2. I suspect we will see some rocky shaking going on next week and until Iraq is less questionable. Then a tax break and better business will progressively make it easier to sleep in 03. We may have a retest here but I'm not expecting a new bear market as many think will occur. One must always expect a final shakeout - most of which violate the previous lows for a 2-3 day time period and +/- 5%. Things are still under the horizon - but firming up nicely. Any future discount in SCE stock prices will be a great opportunity to get in just before the rise. JMHO Bob

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (1589)	3/10/2003 1:38:45 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 1929

"We all agree that the plaintiffs in this case – Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc., Susan Felch, and George Zdasiuk (hereafter Varian) – did not suffer any economic harm as a result of the Internet antics of Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day. It is also plain that the plaintiffs’ reputations are unscathed. Varian’s business is booming. (6 AA 1360.) And nobody really believes, for example, that Felch had a semen stain on her dress, (RB 11) or that Zdasiuk is stupid (RB 19). Varian’s real complaint is that Delfino and Day have disturbed the “peace of mind” of the corporate and individual plaintiffs. (RB 1.) But the law does not promise anyone peace of mind and does not redress its disturbance, except where the disturbance is tortious. Life is full of unactionable disruptions to peace of mind, from the cradle to the grave. Children may be upset by the schoolyard taunts of an insensitive playmate, but they do not have a cause of action for defamation. The daily inter-personal stresses of adult life – family strife, disagreements with co-workers, disappointment with friends – are legion, but they are not to be litigated. “The law of defamation teaches . . . that in some instances speech must seek its own refutation without intervention by the courts. In this case if the [defendants] chose to get in the gutter, the law simply leaves [them] there. . . . This is the precise sort of contest that society can endure without redress from the courts. Base and malignant speech is not necessarily actionable.” (Koch v. Goldway (9th Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 507, 510.) Varian complains that Delfino and Day “have sought shelter under high principles of First Amendment law.” (RB 1.) But if those high principles do not provide such shelter, they are meaningless. We believe they are not meaningless, and they do provide the shelter that Varian decries. They shelter free expression – which is what Delfino and Day have indulged – however offensive it may be." APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF geocities.com