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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (5491)	4/18/1999 8:51:00 PM
From: David W. Tucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

What I gave you was a brief description from a DIALOG database. The exemplary claim was just DIALOG's selection of one of the claims as an example and means nothing. One of the claims was selected to fulfill a display format selection. Means nothing. It might be important to note that there are independent and dependent claims. Claim 1 is an independent claim and claim 2 is a dependent claim, because it also includes everything in claim 1. The claims are the "legal" portion of the patent. Every single word is fought over during the patent prosecution between the Applicant and the Patent Examiner. The claims are the protected portions of the technology and are located at the end of the patent after a lengthy description of the invention. The list of documents were the ones cited by the Examiner or the Applicant during the prosecution of the patent in the Patent Office. There's a lot of general background stuff associated with these patents, but the claims are what's important. The whole suit could be over just one of those claims, or 5 of them. If Lexar is producing a product that includes every single feature of any of the claims, they are infringing the patent. They're recourse is to either prove that they are not infringing (which I feel is unlikely in this case - if they could this would be over by now) or to prove that the particular claim is invalid by providing prior art showing the claimed invention was known prior to the "effective date" (also unlikely IMO). Believe it or not, this patent is another example of pioneering technology held by Sandisk. They have a very large patent portfolio and represents the entire crux of their business. The most interesting thing to me is that you will see Harari's name listed as the inventor on most of their early patents. This guy has been a genius in this art, has formed a great company to exploit the technology, has been able to enforce their technology agains huge pockets (e.g. Samsung, Sony, Hitachi), and made numerous great business decisions during the early stages of this company (Gates-like I feel). This company could have bypassed the manufacturing side from the start and lived on royalties alone (a much nicer balance sheet). Their patent portfolio is great and they're fearless when enforcing their rights. It's all driven by Harari who can quickly examine the products of others and make a good business decision as to whether they should seek royalties or go to court. Harari understands everything about this business from top to bottom. No one else comes close IMO, as evidenced by their success. dave

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (5491)	4/19/1999 10:30:00 AM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Art, From the Motley Fool on 4/15/99 Flash memory data storage products company SanDisk Corp. (Nasdaq: SNDK) retreated $2 15/16 to $20 3/16 after CEO Dr. Eli Harari said "we expect product gross margins to remain under pressure in the second quarter of 1999 due to anticipated declines in average selling prices. Recent bookings have not been as strong as their record pace in the first quarter." Q1 EPS was $0.15, $0.02 better than last year and the Street's consensus estimate. Ausdauer

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (5491)	4/19/1999 11:11:00 PM
From: Craig Freeman	Respond to of 60323

Art, "exemplary" derives from "example" ("exemplar" in Latin) -- meaning a "pattern", "sample", "type", "illustration" and/or "warning". In the world of patents, "non-exemplary" items would bear a slightly lesser weight because of their position in the text (which prevents them from serving as a warning to others.) FYI, the term "exemplary damages" means damages awarded in excess of an actual loss -- so as to make an example to others (a warning). My dictionary is happy to get the exercise but my portfolio is not. Today was downright painful :-( Craig