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 : EDTA (was GIFT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: m rosen who wrote (1728)	4/1/1998 8:22:00 AM
From: GRC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2383

rosen Thank you for responding. You are correct no markman hearing is required. However, the Judge has limited discovery and the proceeding to CLAIM INTERPRETATION, not infringement. Here is a link that gives the Judges order: patents.com Note that item 2 limit discovery until further order. If Jones would decide anything beyond claim interpretation without allowing discovery, she would be reversed. It takes no longer to decide a claim is narrow, than it does to decide its broad. There is no correlation in the courts in general, or in this court, between time to decide if a Markman hearing is needed, and the resultant claim interpretation. The strongest correlation is past experience of the judge. Here, there is no history In your earlier posts said you were basing the timing on Jones' prior cases. Now have you jumped horses to any Federal judge? I can find cases that have more than 6 months from filings to Markman, and fewer than 6 months. Finding exactly 6 months may be a bit more difficult. Your message wasn't clear, which do you think I can't find, more or less than 6 months? Apparently you now believe that she will decide within 6 months of the filings. Have you changed your arguments from timing to say that the interpretation must be broad because she is so slow? I will get a case in short order that is contrary to your 6 month theory, once you clarify which type you want, and you agree that "narrow" means the definition put forth by the accused infringer. GRC ps: Your first attempt at manipulating the price based on predicting the decision was coming soon was rather weak, imho. Also, you were a little to specific in the time frame --it could be shown to be wrong when the time passes with no action. This attempt is much more clever - try and tie the claim interpretation to the delay. It can still be shown wrong, but certainly takes much more work. I almost hope you succeed so I can sell my shares, and then buy them back again when the price returns to 5/8.