semi.org!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,rambus*
Further clouding the horizon are three legal actions by Rambus Inc. against chip maker Hitachi based on alleged patent infringement. Surprisingly, the actions don't involve Rambus DRAMs but SDRAMs instead.
In January, Rambus filed suit in Delaware federal court seeking injunctions against the manufacture, use and sale of certain Hitachi devices. One part of the suit essentially charges Hitachi with failing to discuss with Rambus how Hitachi's non-Rambus products might infringe on Rambus patents.
essentially charges???..failing to discuss?? might infringe?? I understood that Rambus charged Hitachi with patent infringement. No ifs ands or buts about it.
In April, Rambus filed a similar suit in Germany charging infringement of its European patent affecting SDRAM and DDR SDRAM devices. It alleges that Rambus invented fundamental aspects of high-speed memory interfaces used in SDRAMs and DDR SDRAMs.
This one is still alive if I'm not mistaken. I wonder why??? Any ideas?
The case hinges on a narrow question, according to Peter N. Glaskowsky, senior editor of the Microprocessor Report, Sunnyvale, Calif. Did Hitachi violate Rambus's intellectual property rights? This simple question, however, has implications that extend well beyond the two companies involved, he says.
And the answer according to Hitachi is...Yes!
The outcome of these proceedings will be directly relevant to every company making or using synchronous DRAMs, Glaskowsky says. The Rambus patents also are likely to relate to the work of the Advanced DRAM Technology (ADT) effort, he observes.
Hitachi's most substantial argument is that JEDEC policies predating Rambus's participation require JEDEC members to disclose any patent applications that relate to the work of JEDEC committees to which these members belong, according to Glaskowsky. According to Hitachi, Rambus filed its original patent application in April 1990, more than a year before it began attending the relevant JEDEC committee meetings, but did not notify JEDEC.
In Glaskowsky's opinion, the critical question is this: Does participation in a standards committee create an implied contract among the members of the committee? Contracts require an exchange of value under agreed-upon terms. He believes this requirement was met in this case. The value lies in the cooperation among JEDEC members, and the terms of the agreement were expressed in JEDEC's policies, he says.
Glaskowsky suspects that Rambus and Hitachi will be willing to settle their differences if Rambus withdrew its claims over SDRAM and Hitachi agreed to produce and promote RDRAM.
WRONG!
Of course, Rambus is entitled to try to enforce its patent claims on advanced memory technology, he adds.
Correctomundo! |
