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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (14636)	6/20/1998 10:50:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Kenneth - it's way too soon for any "real" response other than the one they gave - UNLESS they have been in negotiations with LU on these issues and the talks broke down. If there have been negotiations going on, they (CSCO) have had time to research/interrogate internal players and take a position and try to come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement for royalties if they found out they were in violation. If this is a surprise, and they haven't been in talks with LU, (and I'd be surprised if this was not the case) they really don't know what lurks in the bowels of the engineering departments on a day-to-day basis and are rapidly forming a committee to make a determination on where they should stand. That "press-pablum" response was entirely appropriate for this scenario. If CSCO was assured of it's position, the statement would have been much stronger - and if stronger statements from CSCO come out, that means whatever negotiations are now underway (and I hope the lawyers are working behind the public scenes by now) are going in CSCO's favor. The claimant in these cases usually stays quiet after the first shot across the bow. IMHO (owning both), this is best (or should have been) left to out-of-court (and public view) negotiations, and I suggest we stockholders recommend same via writing to investor relations.