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.

Non-Tech : Starnet (SNMM)Online gaming, sexsites, lottery, Sportsbook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David W. Tucker who wrote (2790)	4/20/1999 11:37:00 AM
From: goldentoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8858

dave your assessment is correct"..pay or prove..." but these things take time. and will drop stock prices ownly for a short period of time.SNMM still top dog in the online casino world

To: David W. Tucker who wrote (2790)	4/20/1999 5:59:00 PM
From: THOMAS GOODRICH	Respond to of 8858

Dave, I believe HGN is going to have a very difficult time asserting their patent rights to watch-and-wager live broadcasting let alone virtual reality gambling. This concept is tantamount to banking in that "live" banking would be the transacting of business inside a branch office with a teller versus using an ATM which would be "virtual". Should HGN actually have patent rights covering virtual gaming or all forms of remote gambling in some way, then the entire industry and not just Starnet would owe royalties. Anyway, I often wonder how much success HGN would have asserting their patent rights in places like Antigua? TG

To: David W. Tucker who wrote (2790)	4/20/1999 8:37:00 PM
From: David M. Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8858

Dave> Every large corporation realizes that they have to pay for technology from time to time. If SNMM is infringing, they should just make a revenue sharing deal with this company and move on. It's a shakedown, of course, from a two-bit outfit, whose only claim to fame (they imagine) is in filing a very ambiguous patent. I think they'll be lucky to sustain a claim on account of the pathetic failure of their own efforts to develop successful facilitating technology. I wonder how much and for how long even an HGN contingency lawyer is willing to shell out to press it. I think Starnet can fight it alone cheaply enough until the real big money boys join the fray against this petty frivolous impediment. Now that I think about it, big land-based casinos might even back Starnet now to prevent the precedent (of this "bite"). Perhaps Mark should lobby for some of this backing if it hasn't already been offered. Still in speculative mode, I'll bet HGN decided to take on Starnet instead of UBET because of UBET's big-time race betting connections. I'd say that HGN has bitten off a great deal to chew...wouldn't you? I wonder if they have the cajones and the deep pockets to compete at the major league level? I, for one, hope Starnet vigorously defends against this transparent attempt at an unearned payday (actually, to my mind, an extortion) from an otherwise miserable failure of a company. If, after all, we have to pay, then we pay...but not without these scam artists feeling a lot of pain from the coming long years of hard work. I vote we don't just roll over.