Ausdauer:
Your coverage of Sandisk's IP holdings is very good in your fine "FAQ" document.
I think the following should not be taken for granted -
"The tangible value of these cross-licensing arrangements is difficult to estimate as the terms of each agreement is highly confidential. Some of the agreements undoubtedly call for a "swapping" of technology, while others command payments in the form of royalties which are presumably linked to production."
Because of the strength of Sandisk's patents, Sandisk has gained little bits of technology, here and there, from Hitachi and others in the cross licensing agreements. Those agreements don't just provide Sandisk with funds, but much needed technology owned by others. Fortunately, Sandisk has the upper hand because they have the positive cash flow from all this. To my thinking, all the parties involved gain by quickly making agreements once they know that a patent battle is hopeless (just like with the RMBS situation).
As far as this Lexar "patent nullification" trial goes, there are two things Lexar can do. Either prove they are not infringing or prove the patent should never have been issued. The only thing that will nullify the patent claim(s) is prior art. Tons of cash has been spent on paying the best people to find prior art. None has been found so far.
IMO, if Lexar had good prior art, they would have presented it already and lots of people would know about it.
There is an obviousness provision under 35 USC 103, but I can't see how they can come up with an argument for obviousness. You still need prior art that would convince an expert in the art to combine technologies to develop this "obvious" invention. I have not heard of any sufficient obviousness argument.
Lots of things seem obvious once we have all seen them in person, like the "one-click" technology, but the point is that someone has to be the first to think it up. No one has come up with sufficient prior art for the claims covering Amazon's one-click concept even though everyone in the print media seems to think it is obvious. Read the claims and then show me prior art that proves it was known before the filing date of the patent application resulting in the issed claims.
It all sounds simple when you look at the surface of the issue, but the language of the claims (the legal portion of the patent) is critical. Every single word is important and carries a lot of weight.
So to conclude my rambling, I still feel the Lexar situation looks good for us. There are many other separate technologies covered by Sandisk and they won't ever find peace as a large corporation. They'll always be involved with some sort of litigation like most large tech companies.
The jist of the whole thing is the strength of their most fundamental technology.
On another note, the new factory will be right in my back yard (I live in Northern Virginia, home of Silicon Valley East). I'll keep an eye on it. I think that is a great deal for Sandisk.
The last comment I have is "Will Sandisk continue to make a profit from all this?" Now this is a whole different discussion. I see them growing at an increasing rate and many companies suffer during these growth periods. Things are fine now, but what happens during the next recession or foreign economy crisis?
dave |
