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.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brendan2012 who wrote (47841)	2/13/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: Spank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58324

OT I asked the webmistress if we will ever be able to selectively filter out SI posters. She said the programmer is working on it even now... -Spank

To: Brendan2012 who wrote (47841)	2/14/1998 3:46:00 AM
From: William R. Polk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

<<Did it ever occur to you that Iomega also commissioned room temperature tests in addition to the high temperature tests? It sounds like maybe the results of those were too late to be considered.>> This is exactly right. After first allowing IOM to submit the new testing to the court for consideration, the judge appears to have reversed herself and decided that she was not going to consider it. That is apparently why the ruling only refers to the testing done in December. Why did the judge do that? I can only speculate, but it looks to me like the judge decided to reimpose her "testing cut off date" to put an end to the parties coming in with continuous "new" testing. While the ruling certainly promotes orderly procedure I do not think that it serves the public or the "ends of justice" to ignore key evidence just because it was not submitted in accordance with a strict timetable. Bottom line: Nomai kept its "new" disks out of IOM's hands just long enough so that it couldn't do all the testing it needed to do (remember that the disks that IOM had at the time of the TRO were the "old" Nomai disks - and IOM's original testing of that was from October (I think). Anyway, after being totally bummed about the ruling yesterday, I now feel a little better, because it seems that IOM's testing evidence did not receive full and complete consideration. Whether consideration of this testing may have actually made a difference, I don't know. Remember the history.... IOM came to the court for a TRO asking that the court enjoin Nomai from selling disks which it said were "Zip compatible". That's it. (Actually the issue of whether the disks destroy the drives over time is a separate issue but IOM tried to insert it as an issue in the preliminary injunction). It has been clear for some time now that the Nomai disks are "compatible" (except for notebooks) in the broad sense i.e. they aren't rejected by the drives and they read and write data. I personally think that the Nomai disks are compatible because they, in fact, violate IOM patents and/or copyright, but a hearing on that issue is not until later this month with a probable trial to follow even further down the line. How about the "disk" quality issue. Certainly its important to the consumer but I don't know if IOM can actually stop Nomai from selling the disks because it believes the disks are inferior or damage the drives. I don't think, for example, that HP was able to stop clone ink cartridge makers from selling even though HP believes the clone cartridges hurt their printers. I believe the only thing they do is void the HP warranty if you use a non HP approved cartridge. I know from personal experience that most people buy HP brand because they just "don't want to take a chance". However, there is a certain percentage of people who are willing to take the risk and buy the clone. Same thing will happen with Nomai. Most people will buy the IOM approved brand but a certain percent will buy the cheaper brand. Bill