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 : Creative Labs (CREAF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mr.mark who wrote (11562)	6/8/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: Brian Lempel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13925

I never said I was in a position to draw conclusions. However, I still maintainm that the listed terms are not too meaningful today. It has been proven that it is not hard to emulate the SoundBlaster standard. Therefore, being able to say "Soundblaster compatible" doesn't mean too much anymore. And I say that there is not a legal precedent because this lawsuit is very different than ones alleging patent violation. This is not an issue of whether Cyrix infringed, but rather is their card 100% SoudBlaster compatible. This is my last post, as I don't want to get into a Vanni Resta type of argument. I'm leaving tomorrow for a week, so good luck CREAFsters. Brian

To: mr.mark who wrote (11562)	6/8/1998 9:47:00 PM
From: Rutgers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13925

Read between the lines...you're missing the most important part of the "Settlement" release.... Is it only obvious to me that this was meant as a strong warning to those who Creative is currently in litigation with, i.e., DIMD, ESST and AURL? Read John Danforth's last sentence again. 'We are very pleased to conclude this litigation with a clear victory -- a permanent injunction that achieves all of our objectives,'' said John Danforth, vice president and general counsel of Creative Labs, Inc., the wholly owned US subsidiary of Creative. ''Creative has made considerable investments in its audio drivers, its other audio software and its trademarks. As this case shows, our intellectual property has considerable value. It strongly differentiates Creative from others in our industry. We will -- as this protracted and hard-fought case makes clear -- be persistent in our efforts to protect that intellectual property.'' Still don't get it? Hello...ever hear of LEGAL FEES? Protracted is a nice word for saying we intend to spend whatever it takes to litigate this matter fully. Hmmm...now take a look at the financial condition of our defendants...they seem to have one thing in common - not a lot of cash! And, take it from me, defense attorneys like to get paid in cash. Creative can afford to retain expensive litigation counsel. Putting the merits of these actions to the side, the cold, hard reality is that these parties would be better off to avoid a long and COSTLY battle with Creative. The warning shot has been fired, so they would be wise to make an offer to settle and do it quick!