jim... Here's a post from Yahoo worth taking a look at. (I mention Yahoo first so others that are opposed to Yahoo posts need not waste their time).
jim... itclyr is a patent attorney.
h0db, Watz, Bump: Why I'm With RMBS
by: itclyr
8/30/00 11:37 am
Msg: 154304 of 154409
What a morning, huh? I was just checking in and saw the news about Hyundai. There were a few messages directed at me during the night, so I thought I'd reiterate why I'm sticking with RMBS. But I need to clarify a few things as well.
1) Patent duration. Any patent issued from an application filed ON OR AFTER June 8, 1995 has a duration of 20 years from filing. Any patent issued on an application filed BEFORE June 8, 1995 has a duration of the greater of 20 years from filing or 17 years from the date the patent is granted. When I know the patent nos. of the RMBS patents at issue, I can tell you exactly when they expire.
2) Patent invalidity. As I have noted repeatedly, patents are presumed valid and must be proven invalid by clear and convincing evidence. That doesn't mean it never happens, in fact it happens all the time, but the burden of proof is high. I haven't seen anything to suggest that RMBS is particularly vulnerable to a prior art challenge, and since many of their patents date back to 1990--a huge hurdle for any prior art invalidity claim-- RMBS patents seem pretty strong.
3) JEDEC standards. This seems to be the primary assertion of RMBS' detractors. A realted ground of antitrust is probably weaker. The argument is not that RMBS stole its work from JEDEC, but that it failed to abide by JEDEC rules requiring all participants "come clean" on any pending patents. This is a fairly weak defense, adn really isn't a patent defense as such but an equitable argument that it isn't fair under the circumstance to allow RMBS to enforce its patents against JEDEC members (whether the patents should be enforceable against non-JEDEC members is an interesting question. Which of the dramurai WERE NOT JEDEC members?). Proving the assertions will require a clear showing that RMBS knowingly concealed its patents, and it will require good supporting evidence. And don't forget RMBS lawyers will be salivating at the chance to challenge faulty memories, argue that documents show RMBS did not intend waive its patent rights, etc. Nevertheless, RMBS may have some exposure on this regard, depending upon who says what concerning the JEDEC meetings. That is why I asked several times yesterday for any Silicon Valley engineers to give their recollections of what happened at JEDEC.
4) Dell decions. If anyone has a link to the decision I'd like to see it. I've tried unsuccessfully to get a copy. But as Watz pointed out already, Dell is distinguishable on the facts from RMBS' case, and in any event it is just a regulatory ruling and won't be binding on a federal district court.
5) MU, Hyundai exposure. RMBS is refreshing in its willingness to play hardball with patents. If it is serious that it won't license litigation losers, MU and Hyundai need to take a really hard look in the mirror. Is this little company worth the risk, however small, of being shut down. That is a pretty big stick, and I think it may eventually carry the day.
In summary, I still favor RMBS, but the litigation will take on a course of its own, and only time will tell.
ITC |
