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 : S3 (A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dwight martin who wrote (11657)	8/3/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14577

dwight, actually, you need not show "irreperable harm", you have to show in those preliminary requests for injunction that it is VERY LIKELY that patents rights were actually infringed on. Polaroid, few years back, closed with such an injunction Kodak's instant camera lines, because Polaroid showed that it disclosed to Kodak (under NDA) the technology, and that Polaroid patents were actually infringed (polaroid has a patent on "instant photography, quite broad). These injunctions are actually a recent (about 10 to 15 years) weapon that the small companies got against the behemoths that used to infringe left and right, knowing that it would take years before the courts will decide one way or another. Apparently, in this case, the infringement is not clear cut (the device "could infringe", but not necessarily so), and an injunction might cause the "accused" irreparable damage, so the court leaned on the side of being "careful". Just my 2 cents. Zeev