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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Tri-Vision & The V-Chip -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pipick who wrote (3574)	7/21/1998 10:30:00 AM
From: fewbucks26	Respond to of 5743

pipwick, The "re-issue" of a patent cannot broaden it's scope, only narrow the scope. Therefore, I don't think the "re-issue" per se has much to do with anything here. This action was fully expected. Since the SoundView and PG technologies are so similar, in my mind it was just a matter of which firm threw their lawyers first. My understanding is that if anyone was a risk for being assessed a "toll" by SoundView, it was PG. And, yes, this is purely a negotiating ploy. SoundView and PG obviously didn't come to terms initially. PG does in fact have some cards to play -- they have some patents and can cause trouble for SoundView, as well as others. This is not a one way street. So this is purely a negotiating ploy to cut a better deal in my mind. The important thing to remember is that what is driving this is the similarity of SoundView and PG's technologies.