SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BillyG who wrote (19267)9/2/1998 5:24:00 PM
From: FJB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25960
 
BillyG,

Thanks for the extremely lucid explanation. Just finished reading the actual text on this subject at the US Patent Office website and enjoyed your synopsis much better. :-)

Thanks again,

Bob



To: BillyG who wrote (19267)9/2/1998 5:29:00 PM
From: Investor2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25960
 
Thanks for your reply. The whole thing reminds me of a case where my company began suing others for patent infringement. Things worked out well until we ran across someone who had a valid "prior art" claim, having essentially invented our invention a few months earlier than we did. We ended up paying that company a rather large settlement just to continue selling our own equipment.

Best wishes,

I2



To: BillyG who wrote (19267)9/2/1998 10:17:00 PM
From: MtnMan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25960
 
EDIT - Nevermind, saw your previous response.

So BG, do you think this patent issue has some bearing on Cymer's slide (ala acidman's "there must be something" line) or just a red herring/probably minor issue. I wonder if anybody from Cymer has commented on this (or has anybody asked IR? -Neal


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News