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: GRC who wrote (1749)	4/7/1998 1:31:00 PM
From: Michael Tosto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2383

Thank you GRC. It seems to me that this is just another ordinary week in the life of GIFT just like this will turn out to be another ordinary, lost month in the life of GIFT. Why do i get the feeling that this stock will soon evaporate rather than rejuvenate?! Michael

To: GRC who wrote (1749)	4/8/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: m rosen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2383

grc 3 answers 1) My source of timing on the decision has changed his opinion but is positive that the decision is coming in april, furthermore 90% of the decision is completed. 2) I have not spoken to any clerk, rather, I have spoken and been in contact with a defendant's law firm who has kept me abreast of the status of the decision and who unlike Fink, has a longstanding history with Judge Jones and a relationship with her clerks. 3) The rule of law that was established by the seminole markman case was not that the patentee's intent cannot be used to resolve ambiguities in the interpretation of the patent claim, rather quite the contrary, I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in the appellate court ruling in markman. Furthermore, a patentee's intent is also relevant in rebutting a prior art defense. I would suggest that your cursory review of the markman case highlights your lack of legal training and you need to study how the markman decision has evolved and been altered through subsequent decisions. If the intent of the patentee is not relevant why has Arnold, Grant and Fink all represented that Freeny would testify at the markman. Finally, how could the claims be self-explantory at the time they were filed if the internet did not exist at that time, I would suggest that Freeny's testimony is very relevant. Finally, I assure you some of the defendant's are very concerned about this decision!!!!!