Hi Carl Bilow: Thanks for posting the Hitachi Counterclaims in the Delaware court action. I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you did not editorialize one iota <ggg>. Given that many have taken to debasing and denying the reality of the Hitachi settlement, suggesting that there is 'more than meets the eye', blah, blah, blah.... I feel compelled to offer my 'newbie / outsider' comments / questions. This in the spirit of pointing out that, PERHAPS HITACHI'S CASE WAS NOT DEFENSIBLE, either from a pragmatic business perspective, or from a legal perspective.
<<100. Before Rambus had attended its first JEDEC committee meeting, JEDEC members had established and had been following a policy governing the disclosure of patents and patent applications of those firms and individuals participating in its meetings...>>
NO DATES are given. Looks unsubstantiated.
<<102. An example of the disclosure 's importance occurred in the early 1990s...>>
Late 1993, to be precise, roughly 2 years after RMBS since already been attending JEDEC meetings.
<<103. Wang moved for summary judgment on MELA's equitable estoppel defense...>>
Why didn't Hitachi counter sue?
<<104. In the wake of the Wang litigation, JEDEC formally amended its rules to expressly state what had always been its policy, that is, that JEDEC participants were required to disclose any patents and patent applications potentially bearing on JEDEC's standards-setting discussions. By October 1993...>>
Yes, October 1993. Late!
<<105. Consistent with its disclosure policy, JEDEC called for "viewgraphs" to be posted at committee meetings. The recommended viewgraph stated: ......A license shall be made available to applicants under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination..>>
I agree w/ Jim Kelley. 0.5-2% is not unreasonable.
<<121. Rambus took advantage of the information it learned from the participants at the JEDEC committee meetings, and from the proposed standards then under discussion. Rambus used that information to revise secretly its then-pending but undisclosed patent applications and/or to prepare related additional applications to cover the very technology and potential standards being discussed by other JEDEC participants.>>
That is one BIG claim. How come Hitachi didn't countersue? Seems to me they could do very well w/ this claim....if it was true. Also, Continuations and Divisionals CANNOT entail the addition of new matter (see Par. 93 & 94), so how important could those revisions be??
IMO, the rest of it doesn't merit response. IMHO, of course <g>.
BP |
