Legal Q & A
Thanks Jim, here is another one to mull over
This one courtesy of Itcyr
This gentleman represents himself as a patent attorney. his personal opinion is posted here for anyone interested. From Yahoo:
Re: Legal questions
by: itclyr 9/7/00 2:38 pm
Msg: 157395 of 157439
There have been several legal questions raised today. Don't have much time but I'll try to answer.
1) Yes, RMBS can refuse to license MU if RMBS wins in court. I was reviewing recent decisions yesterday when I came across a decision from a Pennsylvania court dismissing an antitrust complaint against a patentee (different facts from RMBS). The court stated: "It is not misuse of patent rights for a paentee to deal only with those with whom it pleases, and a patent holder is allowed to maintain its monopoly over the patented product by refusing to license. Similarly, a patentee may even suppress an invention and deny its use to all others." from Sheet Metal Duct, Inc. v. Lindab Inc., 55 USPQ2d at 1485, citations omitted.
Consider that last fact. RMBS could REALLY favor RDRAM over DDR by refusing all licenses for it. The fact that they are allowing licenses for their DDR patents (albeit at a higher royalty) is one of the reasons I think MU's antitrust allegations will fail.
Additionally, it would make far more sense to refuse a license after litigation than to allow one. That is because it would already be entitled to past damages for any infringement, and any future "lost royalties" would simply be paid by the increased output from another licensee. Why should RMBS reward MU for dragging it through millions of dollars of litigation, when other licensees didn't force them to waste resources on it. The only good fact is that the patents would emerge as all but unbreakable, and nobody else would challenge them over the stench of MU's rotting corpse.
2) RMBS has 20 days to answer the complaint, and will almost certainly include counterclaims for infringement IF it doesn't move to dismiss MU's complaint altogether for lack of a "case or controversy." As I've stated before, you can't drag a patentee into court anytime you find a patent whose technology you want to practice. You have to have a reasonable fear of a lawsuit. If RMBS did no more than seek to initiate discussions, that may not be enough to create a reasonable fear. Existence of the Infineon suit is of course a countervailing factor. I don't know how a court would decide such a motion, but it is at least possible RMBS could seek dismissal to focus on the Infineon case.
3) Don't have time for the Unocal case research yet. Maybe tomorrow. |
