From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 10:56:59 PDT
To: sandfort@crl.com (Sandy Sandfort)
Subject: Re: Patent infringement (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9405190919.A11747-0100000@crl.crl.com>
Message-ID: <199405191756.AA15051@access3.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sandy Sandfort scripsit
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Thu, 19 May 1994, Hal wrote after a thoughtful analysis of the patent 
> infringement question:
> 
> > . . . 
> >  - In any case, Sternlight does not have any standing in making this charge.
> >    He is not a lawyer and is not affiliated with RSADSI in any way.  At best
> >    his reports are second- or third-hand interpretations of his understanding
> >    of RSADSI's position.  Unless or until the patent holder speaks directly
> >    to make these charges, there is no need to respond.
> 
> I think the victims of Mr. Sternlight's accusations of patent infringement
> may have a cause of action against him for libel.  Any thoughts on this
> issue from the other lawyers on this list?  Duncan?  Black Unicorn?  A 
> few legal shots across the bow might help Mr. Sternlight see his crusade 
> in a sterner light.

I'm not familiar with the nature of his accusations.  Anyone, perhaps a 
victim, care to comment more specifically?

>
>  S a n d y
>

-uni- (Dark)
 


-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!