Jay Dreifus and Thread,
re: legal options for redress, remedy and reparation
I am concerned about the possibility of an injunction against Lexar if the courts allow it. I don't believe it is SanDisk's intention to "annihiliate" a competitor. Indeed, the spirit with which the CompactFlash standard was originally created was for open, unrestrictive licensing to allow for adoption of the form factor, to create a stable platform for OEM's to base designs, and to create second sources of product on the open market.
Lexar has been very stubborn in refusing to recognize SanDisk's IP and has protracted this litigation unnecessarily. But rather than mortally wounding them with an injunction (in whatever form would be typically applied in this situation) it may be reasonable to sit back and think of less drastic measures.
I would like to know, from a legal perspective based on prior precedent in the patent infringement arena, if the concept of establishing an interest-bearing escrow account whereby Lexar would be required to deposit a provisional licensing fee per unit sold (based on the intended or anticipated licensing fees SanDisk has established with other licensees) is feasible or allowable. If SanDisk were to prevail, they would be entitled to the proceeds within the account, back-calculated royalties on past CF sales, and other miscellaneous items to which they may be entitled (punitive damages? reimbursement of court costs and legal fees?).
If Lexar were to prevail they would be entitled to the funds in the account and whatever other remedies the court allows. I think this would be a kinder, gentler option. An injunction restricting domestic product sales would be crippling for Lexar and may induce Reimer to scuttle the company before SanDisk could receive any reparations.
Just a thought.
Ausdauer
SanDisk...The kinder & gentler flash memory innovator. |
