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 : 3DFX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SamuraiSam who wrote (8026)	10/8/1998 3:14:00 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 16960

Patent issues, I hate them....but Jonathon opinion hit a sensitive spot with me. I popped him the following e-mail... Jonathon, I read your recent article, 3Dfx vs. Nvidia and would like to offer a few observations. Like yourself, I'm not a patent attorney (kudos to both of us!), but we both agree that if Company A steals intellectual property from Company B, then Company B is entitled to at least some restitution, license fees. Though I might go a little further and say that Company A is in no way any under any obligation to license their invention and can claim a monopoly if they so choose. We appear to disagree on some other points. It does appear that 3Dfx has approached NVidia to resolve this manner prior to filing suit. Though neither of us knows the details of any offer, in that sense it appears on the face that 3Dfx has attempted to protect their intellectual property and not declare a monopoly on their invention. Whether the terms were "reasonable" neither of us is able to say. We seem to have a different view of the patent violation as well. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that the violation in not in terms of using an algorithm, but rather the specific implementation of the algorithm. Unfortunately, I don't expect that either of the parties will be discussing this in much detail in public forums to satisfy either of us as to the specfics. I would also say that it is not reasonable, as tempting as it might be, to tie together other characteristics of 3Dfx's business or products to that of the suit. Accepting your characterizations of the share value and Banshee product for the sake of argument. If a company steals my property it is immaterial as to what the state of the companies business is. Your implication is akin to saying that because I did poorly in investing than someone is entitled to steal from my savings account and I should not take action. Assuming the validity of the patent, 3Dfx has, I'm sure, invested considerable funds in developing that invention and is entitled to protect that investment. Also, would it be fair to identify that this is not the only suit that NVidia is facing. Could this imply that NVidia is recklessly ignoring the intellectual property of others in the industry besides 3Dfx? While my experience in patent assessments is quite limited, I have not found it to be the case that a company does not file for patent infringement as a means of boosting share value. In fact, the reaction to any litigation is typically a reduction in share value as investors usually interpret the action that results in increased expenditure (attorney fees) with a result that is often a "flip of the coin". Keep in mind that in a trial, you'll pull a jury from random off the street and explain the uniqueness of the invention of single pass multitexturing...My opinion is that the temporary increase (now gone) in the in the share value was more coincidental than a real correlation. In conclusion, I think that the point here is whether the patent is valid. I can understand your hope that the patent will be declared invalid, from the perspective of the consumer. But this also might be viewed as short sighted. Companies invest in development to get a return on investment, if their inventions can't be protected under patent law, much of the motivation to invest is diminished. I might be better off just copying/stealing the technology of other companies. Innovation may be diminished. Best Regards, Jim Nickel