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 : EDTA (was GIFT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ANGELIQUE LEE who wrote (2226)	8/14/1998 8:11:00 AM
From: GRC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2383

Here a a few recent docket entries. It shows the response briefs and a request by GIFT for more time. 7/24/98 140 OPPOSITION by Compuserve Inc. to pltff's [135-1] motion for reconsideration of [130-1] order, the Court enters the following Order adopting the following construction of the Freeny patent's claims as set forth in this Order, [130-2] order (lam) [Entry date 07/28/98] 7/24/98 141 MEMORANDUM by Broderbund Software, Intuit Inc. in opposition to pltff's [135-1] motion for reconsideration of [130-1] order, the Court enters the following Order adopting the following construction of the Freeny patent's claims as set forth in this Order, [130-2] order (lam) [Entry date 07/28/98] 7/27/98 142 OPPOSITION by Ziff-Davis Publishing to pltff's [135-1] motion for reconsideration of [130-1] order, the Court (lam) [Entry date 07/29/98] 7/27/98 143 RESPONSE by Telebase Systems to pltff's [135-1] motion for reconsideration of [130-1] order, the Court enters the following Order adopting the following construction of the Freeny patent's claims as set forth in this Order, [130-2] order, [136-1] motion for Oral Argument on E-Data's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 5/15/98 order interpreting the claims of the patent-in-suit (lam) [Entry date 07/29/98] 7/30/98 144 Memo endorsed on pltff's Motion for extension of time for filing pltff's reply in response to defts' oppositions to pltff's motion for reconsideration of the Judge's Opinion and Order dated 5/13/98; The pltff's application for an extension to 8/28/98 to file its Reply is granted (signed by Judge Barbara S. Jones ); Copies mailed. (lam) [Entry date 07/31/98] [Edit date 08/03/98]

To: ANGELIQUE LEE who wrote (2226)	8/14/1998 8:28:00 AM
From: GRC	Respond to of 2383

Here are my thoughts on the brief. I apologize for errors in words in this post, but I'm using voice recognition, and it sometimes correctly spells words it puts in the wrong work. First, notice from my previous post that there was more than 1 response brief. All we have seen is the brief from CompuServe, so we have not seem the complete response. The CompuServe brief seems primarily directed to telling the court that it should reject the motion for reconsideration based on procedure, i.e. because GIFT did not introduce new evidence and did not rely on law previously before the court. Also, CompuServe argued that the doctrine of claim differentiation does not apply because GIFT stipulated that the Claims met the same thing. I think CompuServe's first argument (the procedural one) is weak. Generally, on motion for consideration, this type of argument may be successful. Courts do not like to see litigants re-argue evidence. Also, appeal courts typically defer to lower courts for factual matters. Thus, if the lower court views facts in a certain light, the appeal court typically will defer to that judgment. So generally, trial courts do not have to worry about being second guessed by the appellate court. However, in this case the review by the appellate court does not give deference to the trial court, because claim interpretation is not a factual matter. Our judge must know that if she simply ignored is this new argument, it will be made on appeal. Judges don't like to be reversed, so I would think she would consider the argument even though procedurally she need not consider it. In short, I think this argument will not fly. However, CompuServe's second argument, that claim differentiation was stipulated away, causes me a little more concern. Rather then reviewing the initial papers, I'll wait to see what gives reply states. All in all, I think that this brief was not very persuasive. However, I expect that some of the other briefs that have been filed, which we have not yet seen, argue the facts, rather than relying on procedure.