Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
6,477.16
(
-1.74%
)
US TECH 100
23,031.60
(
-2.05%
)
Dow Jones
45,960.11
(
-1.01%
)
Brent Oil
101.60
(
0.92%
)
Bitcoin
68,552.06
(
-0.34%
)
News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257295
Next 10
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

zipjet

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 36
Posts 2637
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/06/2003

zipjet

Re: iwfal post# 136874

Saturday, 02/11/2012 5:55:43 PM

Saturday, February 11, 2012 5:55:43 PM

Post# of 257295

I've wondered for a while why A*'s (in)ability to pay for even 1x damages wasn't a part of the MNTA/NVS argument for irreparable harm.



I suspect it is because of the perception that Watson (shall I call them joint tortfeasor) could respond in damages. The Texaco situation supports the argument that might not be true.



It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone ... where it is often impossible to bring one's ideas to a conclusive test either formal or experimental. J.M. Keynes

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today