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: Simon Cardinale who wrote (8393)	10/16/1998 9:06:00 PM
From: Michael Linov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16960

Thanks again for a great contribution. It's posts like these that differentiate S.I. from the likes of Yahoo (which I don't even visit anymore), and even the fool. I'll buy you a beer if you're ever in Toronto :) I'm truly impressed at how much higher the quality of the posts here are compared to other forums. Keep up the good work :)

To: Simon Cardinale who wrote (8393)	10/16/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16960

Seems like you were the perfect candidate for this job...you found out what was under that rock (groan...sorry couldn't pass it up). I'm not a patent expert either, but have supported some assessment of IP in other areas and have picked up a couple of points in the area. My field is network security...dare you to pick a pun for that one.:o) It's hard to tell from the notes exactly what is going on. Usually when referring to Claims in a patent case, it refers to the claim of the patent (as opposed to any "claim" by the defendant, if that's what you meant to imply.) I might assume that Claim one of 279 is operative from your discussion, but can't be sure. Did you note what claim 1 of 279 is? A couple of things I turned up that may help explain the applicability of the spec from TDFX and also help to amplify on "indefiniteness". From:JURY CONSIDERATIONS IN A PATENT CASE: REMOVING QUESTIONS OF LAW AND EQUITABLE ISSUES FROM THE JURY, by STEPHEN R. RISLEY*THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia "Indefiniteness" "The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (1995) states the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. A decision on whether a claim is invalid under 112(2) requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification." ..."As long as those of ordinary skill in the art realize that various parameters can be easily obtained, 112(2) is satisfied. Section 112(2) does not require that all possible dimensions or parameters be set forth in the patent, let alone that they be listed in the claims. Orthokinetics Inc., 1 USPQ2d at 1088." So I might turn the question back to you having seen more of the material...does it seem likely that the TDFX spec sheet was presented as an exhibit to show that those skilled in the art would readily understand the claim or perhaps something else. For the curious (and masochistic) reader, USC 35 can be found at: bitlaw.com I would doubt that "motive of the plaintiff" would have a lot to do with whether the defendant would be allowed discovery, but it is also my expectation that NVidia would be entitled to discovery in any event, to at least determine what S3's understanding of the broadness of the patent is and when and how they determined that broadness. From your post: "In order to grant an injunction it has to be in the public good." I had forgotten about that. It's probably a good explanation of why 3Dfx didn't seek an injunction Nvidia...public good has to be difficult to show. and, "S3 has not suffered economic damage because they did not develop the patented devices, but only bought them" IMO, absolutely bogus. Whether S3 bought the invention or developed it absolutely irrelevant (I think). If Nvidia actually believes that "motive" or "the purchase of IP" is a determining factor they have convinced me, at least, that they have no respect for patent law and the intent of patent law. Thanks for your effort, it's interesting and enlightening. Best Regards, Jim P.S. If I get a chance next week, I'll verify with a patent person on the relevance of motive or the purchase of patents. I don't expect any change but I'll verify it anyway. P.P.S. Saundra Armstrong, rings a bell...seems like she did a ruling on a case in cryptography, I didn't care for...I'll have to look that up.