2 Milliarden $: Patriot Scientific gegen intel
Seite 2 von 136 Neuester Beitrag: 25.04.21 03:01 | ||||
| Eröffnet am: | 18.03.04 14:29 | von: aida73 | Anzahl Beiträge: | 4.387 |
| Neuester Beitrag: | 25.04.21 03:01 | von: Silkelwtpa | Leser gesamt: | 344.610 |
| Forum: | Hot-Stocks | Leser heute: | 153 | |
| Bewertet mit: |  | |||
| Seite: < 1 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... 136 > | ||||
können,daß Geschäft macht wohl Berlin
Sauerrei oder?
Grüße
Mein Banker hat mir gesagt, pro Aktie 0,02 $ . Das kann ja wohl nicht stimmen! oder?
Über welchen Broker kaufst Du ?
Dank i.V.
aber mal nebenbei,das ganze ist doch wirklich alles viel zu einfach,
da haben sich doch nicht,ein paar schlaue Köpfe eine geniale Abzocke
einfallen laßen,wir werden ja sehn,bin echt gespannt was da so alles kommt!
Oft liegt die Wahrheit im Einfachen, Offensichtlichen ! und wir scheuen uns nur, sie zu erkennen.
Limit-Orderkosten 0€
Provision bei 6-10000€ 0,08%
bei 8000€ kostet das bei mir 17,59€
hoffe habe geholfen
ich hab mich auch schon länger für patriot interessiert, und habe
geordert zu 0,094 USD. 25k stück
mal schauen ob ich´s krieg.....
maximus
Einfach mal durchlesen und dann eigene Meinung bilden. Wahr oder Unwahr?
Kaufrisiken und eigene Risikobereitschaft abschätzen und dann einsteigen .... oder auch nicht.
Bleibt natürlich jedem selbst überlassen!
NO RISC NO FUN !
Der Hossboss
PS: man kann auch mit einem sogenannten BLUE CHIP auf die Nase fallen! Beispiele gibt es da wohl genügend.
Kauf Orders
Stücke Limit
25.000 0,082
41.000 0,08
- -
- -
- -
Weitere: 0
Best Ask
Taxe Volumen
0,095 20.000 Stück
Verkauf Orders
Limit Stücke
0,21 22.000
0,22 2.200
- -
- -
- -
Weitere: 0
viel verkehr war ja heut nicht.....
maximus
Das Software-Unternehmen MicroUnity glaubt, dass Intel mit der Hyperthreading-Technik und der Verarbeitung von Multimedia-Daten in Pentium-Prozessoren gegen seine Patente verstößt. Mit einer Patentklage will das Unternehmen nun die eigenen Rechte durchsetzen. Auch Dell sieht sich mit einer Klage von MicroUnity konfrontiert, weil das Computer-Unternehmen diese Multimedia-Technik in ihren Produkten verwendet.
Zu Zeiten der Dotcom-Ära hatte MicroUnity im Silicon Valley eine eigene Chip-Fabrik. Einer ihrer Gründer war John Moussouris, der die RISC-Technologie für Prozessoren erfunden hat. MicroUnity wollte eine Plattform für Wohnzimmer-Computer herstellen, doch die Rechnung ging nicht auf. Das Unternehmen überlebte mit Lizenzeinnahmen durch Rechte an Halbleiterfertigungstechniken.
MicroUntiy beauftragte die gleiche Anwaltskanzlei mit dem Fall, die schon die Chip-Schmiede Intergraph erfolgreich gegen Intel vertreten hat. Bis dato hat Intel 150 Millionen Dollar an Intergraph gezahlt. Über die Höhe der Forderungen der MicroUnity-Klage ist nichts bekannt; sie wurde bei einem Gericht in Marshall, Texas eingereicht. (jr/c't)
MicroUnity nur OTC handelbar, akt. 0,0001 USD
@soros, was hälst du davon? Du bist doch der OTC Experte ;)
Ich kann nur irgendwie keine WKN oder Symbol finden. Kann jemand helfen ?
Diese Story stand auch in der NY Times und in der L.A. Times.
About MicroUnity
MicroUnity, Inc. is a privately held company focused on providing Software Defined Broadband solutions. MicroUnity licenses its BroadMX core and associated BroadLib development environment to provide a powerful and flexible platform for physical layer and other performance intensive algorithms.
Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense
lassen wir uns mal überraschen,hop up oder minus 50% so sehe ich das!
geklaut bei WO
Es geht so langsam los...lest euch mal durch, was da startet und um welche Firmen und Geräte es zunächst (das ist ja erst der Anfang) geht:
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Patriot Scientific Corporation(“Patriot”), by its attorneys, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP and Beatie and Osborn LLP, for its Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) against defendants Fujitsu Computer Systems Corporation (“Fujitsu”), Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (“Matsushita”), NEC Solutions (America), Inc. (“NEC”), Sony Electronics Inc. (“Sony”), Toshiba America, Inc. (“Toshiba”) (collectively, “Infringing Defendants”), Charles H. Moore (“Moore”), Technology Properties Ltd.(“TPL”), and Daniel E. Leckrone (“Leckrone”), alleges:
1. This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35
U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq., and for declaratory judgment for determination and correction of inventorship and ownership of a patent and its family of patents pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and 35 U.S.C. §§ 116 and 256.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Patriot is incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware; maintains its Principal place of business at 10989 Via Frontera, San Diego, California; and is engaged in the business of developing and owning intellectual property, integrated circuits, and systems level engineering.
3. Patriot is the named assignee of United States Patent No. 5,809,336
Entitled “HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSOR HAVING VARIABLE SPEEED SYSTEM CLOCK” (“336 Patent”).
4. Defendant Fujitsu maintains its principal place of business at 1250 East
Arques Avenue, M/S 122, Sunnyvale, California 94085;and is engaged in the business of, among other things, providing semiconductor products and services for networking, communications, automotive, security, and other markets throughout the United States, including the State of California.
5. Defendant Matsushita maintains its principal place of business at One
Panasonic Way, Secaucus, New Jersey; and is engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of consumer, business, and industrial products in the United States, including the State of California.
6. Defendant NEC maintains its principal place of business at 10850 Gold
Center Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670; and is engaged in the business of the manufacture of communications, computers and electronic components in the United States, including the State of California.
7. Defendant Sony maintains its principal place of business at 1 Sony Drive,
Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, the manufacture of audio, video, communications, and information technology products for consumer and professional markets in the United States, including the State of California.
8. Defendant Toshiba maintains its principal place of business at 1251
Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, marketing and manufacturing information and communication systems, electronic components, heavy electrical apparatus, consumer products, and medical diagnostic imaging equipment in the United States, including the State of California.
9. Defendant Moore is an individual, resides at 40 Cedar Lane, Sierra City,
California, and through his agent has asserted a claim of partial ownership and co-inventorship of the ‘336 Patent.
10. Defendant TPL maintains its principal place of business in San Jose,
California, is engaged in the business of selling and licensing intellectual property, and through its agent has asserted a claim of partial ownership of the ‘336 patent.
11. Defendant Leckrone is an individual, is Chairman of TPL, resides at 4010
Moorpark Avenue, #215, San Jose, California, and has asserted, on behalf of Moore and TPL, a claim of partial ownership of the ‘336 patent.
12. Pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on January
28, 2004, Patriot invited Moore, TPL, and Leckrone to join the litigation voluntarily as co-plaintiffs with Patriot; but they declined. Therefore, Patriot has joined them as defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §
1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States and under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
14. As required by Article III of the United States Constitution and the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, an actual controversy exists between Patriot and defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone over the inventorship and ownership of the ‘336 patent. The proper assertion of these rights are critical to the enforcement of the patent and the validity of the patent.
15. Patriot claims sole ownership of all right, title, and interest in the ‘336
Patent; but through defendant Leckrone defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone claim partial inventorship and partial ownership of the ‘336 Patent, claim to be co-owners of the ‘336 Patent with Patriot, and demand compensation for their interest in the ‘336 Patent.
16. This action is properly venued in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391©
and 1400(b) because defendants reside in or do business in this district; and/or committed acts of patent infringement in this district.
17. In addition, on February 18, 2004, the Infringing Defendants consented by
Stipulation to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. A copy of the Stipulation is attached as Exhibit A.
RELATED ACTIONS
18. This action is related to the actions titled Patriot Scientific Corporation v. Moore, et al., No. C 04 0618 JCS, and Intel Corporation v. Patriot Scientific Corporation, No. C 04 0439 JCS, which are pending in the Oakland Division of this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19. On September 15, 1998, the Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘336
Patent naming Moore and Russell H. Fish, III (“Fish”), as inventors and Patriot as assignee. A copy of the ‘336 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
20. Fish solely conceptualized the technology claimed by the ‘336 Patent and
solely owned the rights, title, and interest in the ‘336 Patent.
21. Fish assigned the ‘336 Patent to the Fish Family Trust, the Fish Family Trust
assigned the ‘336 Patent to Nanotronics Corporation(“Nanotronics”), and Nanotronics assigned the ‘336 Patent to Patriot.
22. These assignments were duly recorded in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office as follows: Reel/Frame 005852/0465, recorded September 26, 1991; Reel/Frame 005978/0672, recorded January 21, 1992; and Reel/Frame 008194/0013, recorded October 28, 1996.
23. Patriot is therefore sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the ‘336 Patent,
including the right to bring this action for injunctive relief and damages.
24. Through defendant Leckrone defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone have
asserted a claim for partial inventorship and partial ownership of the ’336 Patent and claim to be co-owners of the ‘336 Patent with Patriot.
25. Through Leckrone, defendants TPL and Leckrone assert that Moore
assigned an ownership interest in the ‘336 Patent to TPL and Leckrone.
26. Patriot disputes the claims of inventorship and ownership by Moore and
partial ownership by TPL and Leckrone and requests this Court to resolve the issues of inventorship and ownership.
27. The Infringing Defendants have made, used, sold, offered to sell,
imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically within the State of California, computers, laptop computers, and/or server systems which include but are not limited to the following:
Fujitsu:
C Series;
E7000;
E2000;
S6000;
CELSIUS; and
Stylistic ST4000(Fujitsu Products”)
Matsushita:
Toughbook 01;
Toughbook 07;
Toughbook 18;
Toughbook 28;
Toughbook 34;
Toughbook 48;
Toughbook 50;
Toughbook 72;
Toughbook R1;
Toughbook T1;
DMR-HS2;
DMR-E80H;
DMR-E60S;
DMR-E30K;
DMR-E30S;
DMR-E50K; and
DMR-e50s(“Matsushita Products”)
NEC:
Versa LitePad;
MobilePro P300;
MobilePro 790; and
Versa E120 DayLite(“NEC Products”)
Sony:
VAIO V505A Series;
VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO – LP4M;
VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO – Power;
VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO – Works;
VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO – LP4M;
VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO – Basic;
VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO – Power;
VAIO RZ simple;
VAIO RZ gamer;
VAIO RZ UDL;
VAIO W Series;
RDR-GX7;
DAV-C990; and
SLV-D300P(“Sony Products”)
Toshiba:
Satelite A10;
Satelite A35;
Satelite M30;
Satelite P10;
Satelite P25;
Tecra S1;
Portege M100;
Portege 3500; and
Portege R100(“Toshiba Products”).
28. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made,
used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products respectively, in accordance with the principles and claims of the ‘336 Patent.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Judgment For Determination and Correction of Inventorship)
29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs
1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
30. Patriot disputes the claims of inventorship by Moore of the ‘336 Patent and requests this court to resolve the issue of inventorship.
31. A judicial declaration correcting inventorship of the ‘336 Patent is necessary so that Patriot can enforce its right with respect to that patent against the Infringing Defendants.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Judgment For Determination and Correction of Ownership)
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs
1 through 28 of the complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
33. Patriot disputes the claims of partial ownership by Moore, TPL, and Leckrone of the ‘336 Patent and requests this Court resolve the issue of ownership.
34. A judicial declaration about the ownership of the ‘336 Patent is necessary so that Patriot can enforce its rights with respect to that patent against the Infringing Defendants.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809, 336 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs
1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
36. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made,
used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically within California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, and which directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘336 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
37. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made,
used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed and continue to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and/or distribute within the United States, including specifically California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, that come within a range of equivalents of the claims of the ‘336 Patent, and therefore infringe one or more claims of the ‘336 Patent.
38. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made,
used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed and continue to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and/or distribute within the United States, including specifically California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, without authority or license from Patriot, and in violation of Patriot’s rights, and therefore infringe the ‘336 Patent.
39. The unlawful infringing activity by the Infringing Defendants is
continuing and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
40. The infringing Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ‘336 Patent
and have willfully, deliberately, and intentionally infringed the claims of the ‘336 Patent.
41. The acts of infringement by the Infringing Defendants have damaged
Patriot and unless the infringement is enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will suffer further damage.
42. The amount of money damages suffered by Patriot from the acts of
infringement by Infringing Defendants cannot be determined without discovery, and is, therefore, subject to proof at trial.
43. Patriot is entitled to a complete accounting of all revenue derived by the
Infringing Defendants from the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint. In addition, the harm to Patriot from the Infringing Defendants acts of infringement is not fully compensable by money damages.
44. Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm, has no
adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the Infringing Defendants’ conduct is enjoined. Patriot, therefore, also requests a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction at the entry of judgment, to prevent additional infringement.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Inducement of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5809,336 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b))
45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs
1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth in full.
46. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have actively
induced, and are now inducing, infringement of the ‘336 Patent by selling within the United States, including specifically California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, and teaching users to use those devices and/or systems in a manner which infringes one or more claims of the ‘336 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)).
47. The Infringing Defendants have unlawfully derived, and continue to
derive, income and profits by inducing others to infringe the ‘336 Patent; and Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages because of the Infringing Defendants’ inducement to infringe the ‘336 Patent.
48. Patriot has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable damage for
which it has no adequate remedy at law because of the Infringing Defendants’ inducement of others to infringe the ‘336 Patent, and will continue to be harmed unless the Infringing Defendants are enjoined from further acts of inducement.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c))
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs
1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth in full.
50. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have offered to sell or have sold within the United States components of the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, claimed in the ‘336 Patent, and apparatus for use in practicing the processes claimed in the ‘336 Patent.
51. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), the components and apparatus constitute a material part of the inventions in the ‘336 Patent and were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘336 Patent and were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for noninfringing uses.
52. The Infringing Defendants will continue to contribute to the infringement of the ‘336 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.
53. The Infringing Defendants have derived, and continue to derive, unlawful profits by contributing to the infringement of the ‘336 Patent, and Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages because of the Infringing Defendants’ contributory infringement of the ‘336 Patent.
54. Patriot has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm because of the Infringing Defendants’ contributory infringement of the ‘336 Patent, unless the Infringing Defendants are enjoined from further contributory infringement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Patriot respectfully prays for an order:
(1) adjudging Fish the sole inventor of the ‘336 Patent;
(2) adjudging Patriot the sole owner of the ‘336 Patent;
(3) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 116 and 256, directing the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue certificates correcting the inventorship and ownership of the ‘336 Patent;
(4) adjudging U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 valid, enforceable, and infringed by the Infringing Defendants;
(5) permanently enjoining the Infringing Defendants, their representatives, assignees or successors, or any subsidiaries, divisions, agents, servants, employees of the defendant, and/or those in privity with the Infringing Defendants from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and inducing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, and for all further and proper injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
(6) directing the Infringing Defendants to account for all revenue derived from the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint;
(7) awarding plaintiff Patriot monetary damages from the Infringing Defendants for past infringement, including but not limited to a reasonable royalty, plus applicable pre- and post- judgment interest, and costs to which plaintiff is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284, as well as attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or other applicable law;
(8) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, awarding up to treble damages for willful, deliberate, and intentional infringement by the Infringing Defendants; and
(9) granting any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all triable issues pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: March 11, 2004 BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP.
Stock Market Standouts for Monday, March 29, 2004: OGHI, GTEL, PTSC, UNWR
WESTON, Fla., Mar 29, 2004 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) --
TheSUBWAY.com names On The Go Healthcare Inc. (OTCBBGHI) to its Stock Watch List. OGHI is new to TheSUBWAY.com, and we expect great things from this stock! Watch this company; it just announced great news, and we think it is due to make a move in the near term! Other stocks highlighted include:
GlobeTel Communications Corp. (OTCBB:GTEL): Market Perform,
Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB:PTSC): Market Perform, !!!!!!!!!
Last: 0.100
Close: 0.100
High: 0.100
Low: 0.089
Open: 0.090
Change: +0.00
Volume: 1,008,400
Bid: 0.080
Ask: 0.120
Bid/Ask Size: 5,000 / 5,000
52 Wk High: 0.195
52 Wk Low: 0.033
%Change: 9.8%
ja ich würd mich auch freun, wenn die party endlich heißlaufen würde.
bin eher klein dabei kk: 0,092 usd
was ist dein kk ? bist du bei patriot eher groß oder klein investiert?
greetz
maximus
Aber sollten die wirklich ca.800 Mio. Lizenzgebühren pro Jahr erstreiten - (bei 8
Mitarbeiter geringe Kosten)bei ca.148 mio. Aktien und einen KGV von 15-20 !?!?
Dann kommt noch eine einmalige Stafe von mehreren Mrd. hinzu =
Dann ist meine kleine Investition bestimmt eine ganz ganz ganz GROSSE
Ps.:Atila der keinen zum kaufen drängen will, denn es kann in 1 Jahr auch
ein Kurs von 0.001 sein!
Habe den Verdacht dass Intel versucht durch Niederbashen und Aufkaufen der PTSC-Aktien den Schaden zu minimisieren.
Bin zwar nur mit ca.1000 Dollar investiert....aber falls die Rechnung aufgeht...ist dies auch bereits ein Glas Sekt wert lol
Bis bald