Hi all; I thought I'd reply to Jeff of Rambusite on this thread, as his point is one that keeps reappearing:
OK, Separate Issues They May Be
USJeff (Moderator), Rambusite thread, May 19, 2001
The judge ruled that Infineon did not infringe. The jury found that Rambus committed fraud in obtaining the patents. If the patents had nothing to do with Infineon or their products then why were they allowed to proceed to trial? Obviously, the jury felt that Infineon's products did infringe on Rambus' patents. Can my corporation sue Ford Motor Company because they obtained a widget patent, unrelated to any of my products, fraudulently? So who is going to be right on appeal? The judge or the the jury or nobody? The thing looks out of control to me.
rambusite.com
Before the trial, Rambus longs argued that since Infineon was going to argue that JEDEC prevented Rambus from being able to collect royalties on SDRAM, it must also be the case that Infineon believed that SDRAM actually did infringe on Rambus patents. So having the lawsuit go against them twice must really torque them. (LOL!!!)
The answer (before the trial) was to note that the question of whether or not SDRAM infringed on Rambus' patents is not a question that Infineon is required to provide the answer to. Since Rambus is the one claiming infringement, they are the ones that must prove infringement, but Infineon does not have to assume that there either was or was not infringement. Consequently, Infineon can present multiple defenses, one for the case where there is infringement (use JEDEC), the other for the case where there isn't (the easy case).
Since the infringement could be appealed, the question of the JEDEC conduct is not moot. And as long as the jury has heard the evidence, it makes sense to let them make a decision on it. Rambus should have packed their bags when the Markman decision came down, this whole thing would have been more pleasant for them, as Infineon would have left them unbesmirched with a FRAUD conviction.
But on to the case of whether it is possible for Rambus to commit fraud against Infineon when their patents didn't cover SDRAM after all. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that if I show up at a bank with a water pistol hidden under my jacket and I ask for their money on the basis that I am armed and dangerous, I will be convicted of "armed robbery", even though I was, in fact, unarmed at the time. Rambus' actions seem similar to me. They tried to perpetrate a fraud, and not getting away with it is not enough to absolve them.
-- Carl |
