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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (226206)	2/17/2007 3:12:24 AM
From: etchmeister	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

And before you trot out the "its normal" argument, I wasn't troting - BTW there are other ways beside pricing if you use it when you were caught doing 110MPH in a 25MPH residential district or a 15MPH school zone with lots of kids playing outside. No kids got hurt because of volume discount... Varian Answers Applied Materials Patent Suit, Files Counter Claim, Separate Antitrust Complaint; Antitrust Suit Claims Applied Used Monopoly Power to Suppress Competition Business Wire, July 8, 1997 Find More Results for: "predatory pricing novellus " Varian fires 2 legal... PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 8, 1997--Varian Associates, Inc. has responded to Applied Materials' June 13th patent suit claiming Varian had infringed on various Applied patents in the semiconductor manufacturing area. In actions filed late yesterday and today in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Varian denies any infringement and states that each of the Applied patents are invalid because of their failure to comply with the legal requirements of the patent laws. In accompanying counterclaims, Varian asks the court to affirm its position that the Applied patents are invalid and are not infringed. Varian alleges that Applied has known for some time that one of its patents is invalid based on information Varian supplied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and to Applied. Nonetheless, Applied chose to assert this claim in its recent suit which, according to Varian's answer, is evidence that the filing was "in bad faith for the purpose of willfully maintaining Applied's monopoly in the physical vapor deposition (PVD) equipment market." Varian's counter claim alleges that Applied has attempted to "suppress competition in the manufacture and sale of physical vapor deposition equipment to deny integrated circuit manufacturers the benefit of free and open competition." According to the filing, Applied's patent suit "is an attempt to interfere directly with Varian's business relationships through the use of litigation, as opposed to the outcome of litigation." Varian seeks an order that Applied be permanently enjoined from monopolization or attempts to monopolize arising out the enforcement of its patents.