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: Jack Colton who wrote (14811)	6/27/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: mike fredricks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

#1 If this is what Cisco personnel are doing they have too much free time. #2 Obvious there is some type of secret going on, and if they are trying to keep things quiet, then this could potentially open up some type of investigation. #3 When is the last time cisco split and at what price? #4 what is the rumor that they may be buying someone?

To: Jack Colton who wrote (14811)	6/27/1998 1:40:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Jack, CCO online requires registration which means the information behind that firewall is proprietary. I'm lost as to why you find this difficult to understand. Furthermore, every company has information that they don't share with the public due to competitive, vendor, customer or other related issues. CCO is a way to share some (not all) internal information with Cisco's customers and distributors to keep them abreast of changes in the industry and cisco products and practices. If this informaiton was meant to be public then Cisco would distribute a press release. Now there's no need to be upset by Cisco's action on this..simply stop posting off of CCO. No problem. Gary

To: Jack Colton who wrote (14811)	6/27/1998 8:10:00 PM
From: Kent Rattey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Jack, The legal staff will be too busy to review anything, if CSCO utilized any of this information. This is a little troubling as a shareholder, along with LUcy's patent claims. Thursday, June 25, 1998 PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A Pittsburgh-area executive took his talents elsewhere, but he left behind e-mail messages that his former employer says are evidence of wrongdoing. Fore Systems Inc. charged Wednesday that in his last few days as an employee, Eric W. Bell disclosed trade secrets to a competitor -- Cisco Systems Inc., based in San Jose, Calif. -- via three e-mail messages. ''This information was discovered only recently when certain e-mail messages sent by defendant via plaintiff's e-mail system came to light,'' the lawsuit said. Fore Systems sued Bell, who was its former program manager for special projects, in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh. Both corporations design and make computer-networking equipment, but Cisco is the world's biggest such company. In the most recent quarter, it reported sales revenues of $2.18 billion compared to Fore Systems' $131 million. A call to Bell's home in Highlands Ranch, Colo., was not returned immediately. Stacey Clark O'Hara, a spokeswoman for Cisco Systems in San Jose, said executives there had not seen the lawsuit and therefore could not comment. After accepting a job with Cisco, Bell stayed with Fore Systems until June 10, long enough to attend a meeting with a major customer, which the lawsuit identified as an intelligence agency of the U.S. government. One of the e-mail messages contained the agency's confidential requirements and the substance of technical discussions with the agency, the lawsuit said. Another message, forwarded from a fellow Fore executive, concerned products using new technology that was under development. The lawsuit charges Bell with breach of contract, duty and good faith as well as unfair competition and misappropriation of trade-secret information, and it asks for an unnamed sum in damages. It also asks the court to force Bell to quit his Cisco job and return any documents or data he has about Fore Systems' trade secrets. Fore Systems spokesman Rich Borden said the company has a policy of not commenting on litigation. What do you guys think? E-mail doesn't lie. Kent