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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Francis Chow who wrote (58720)	6/25/1998 12:04:00 AM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 186894

patent infringement is a proper jurisdiction of the court, since it relies on interpretation of legal documents defining intellectual property previously prepared and submitted by the participants and agreed to by the patent office. That is not at all similar to the courts determining business practices in the absence of a pre-defined legal basis for determining the range of the technology discussion.

To: Francis Chow who wrote (58720)	6/25/1998 12:08:00 AM
From: Dale J.	Respond to of 186894

But courts get into high tech all the time, example: drug patent infringement cases where judges look at molecular configurations to determine if patents are infringed - sometimes they even get it right. Of course such cases are very expensive, with lots of expert witnesses called and lots and lot of high priced lawyers. Well, true. But those are cases of private sector patent infringement where the aggrieved party has every right for a full hearing and equal access to the law. The standard for the government is and should be different. I don't think the judges would have used that language in a private sector law suit.