'Smoking Gun' Seen Lacking In Rambus Papers
techweb.com
(02/21/01, 8:32 p.m. ET) By Jack Robertson, EBN
Court documents submitted in an antitrust suit filed
against Rambus Inc. and unsealed last week by a San
Jose federal judge do not appear to have produced the
"smoking gun" that the company's adversaries were
hoping for.
The documents—part of a restraint of trade suit filed by
Hyundai Electronics Industries Co. Ltd.—do reference
Rambus' alleged possession of synchronous DRAM
patents while it was a member of the JEDEC industry
standards body. But much of the data is open to
interpretation, according to sources.
Hyundai hopes the information will prove Rambus
(stock: RMBS) violated JEDEC disclosure rules by
failing to tell the committee it had filed its own SDRAM
patents even as the technology was being discussed as
part of open JEDEC standards deliberation. Hyundai
has also argued that Rambus is violating antitrust laws
by using its synchronous patents to subvert the
industry's open SDRAM standard.
Rambus, Los Altos, Calif., has denied the charges.
The 201 pages of company documents include Rambus'
five-year business plan dating from 1992 and 29 e-mail
summaries of JEDEC meetings from 1992 through
1995 during which Rambus was present when the
SDRAM technology was discussed.
A review of the unsealed material showed that little of
Rambus' dialogue pertained to the company's SDRAM
patents, while internal company e-mails are being
interpreted variously by parties with knowledge of the
case to either support or challenge Rambus' claims. The
newly released documents predominately relate to
Rambus' preoccupation with establishing Direct
Rambus DRAM in the market against the then-evolving
SDRAM specification.
Rambus did refer to what it called "Sync DRAMs" in its
confidential 1992 five-year business plan. As part of a
multi-faceted strategy to push its Rambus DRAM
design, the company proposed a legal attack on what it
called "Synch DRAMs infringing on some claims in our
filed patents." The company also said that "there are
additional claims we can file for our patents that cover
features of Sync DRAMs. Then we will be in position
to request patent licensing (fees and royalties) from any
manufacturer of Sync DRAMs. Our action plan is to
determine the exact claims and file the additional claims
by the end of the third-quarter, 1992."
Rambus' challengers charge the business plan showed
as early as 1992 that the company was crafting its
patent defense policy without revealing its intentions to
JEDEC. Sources with knowledge of Rambus' strategy
said the business plan was written shortly after the
company was formed and at a time when it didn't yet
have legal counsel on staff.
"As part of any litigation there are numerous documents
and Rambus makes a policy not to comment on specific
documents," said Avo Kanadjian, vice president of
worldwide marketing for Rambus. "However, it would
be irresponsible and misleading for anyone to view any
documents out of context and without seeing all the
evidence. It is our right and indeed our obligation to
shareholders to do all in our power to protect our
patented innovations."
Hyundai declined to comment on the documents.
Other aspects of Rambus' business plan were revealed
in a series of 29 e-mails sent by Richard Crisp, the
company's engineering manager who attended the
JEDEC meetings. The e-mails offer a blow-by-blow
account of the SDRAM technical deliberations and
reveal an industry divided over the proposed standard.
Crisp's e-mails show Rambus made a concerted effort
to sell Direct RDRAM to JEDEC's semiconductor
manufacturing members and to counter marketing
moves then underway by SDRAM supporters.
In a reference to the JEDEC SDRAM deliberations,
Crisp on Dec. 11, 1992, wrote, "IBM raised the issue
that they were aware some 'voting' JEDEC attendees
have patents pending on SDRAMs that they have not
made the committee aware of. They will come to the
next meeting with a list of the offenders. There are
currently about 20 patents that are on the tracking list
so the list will get longer."
There is no further information in the documents as to
how Rambus responded. Litigants in the case charge
Rambus failed to disclose an initial 1990 patent
application, which they claim had broad SDRAM
claims. Rambus has defended its actions by asserting
that it was not a JEDEC member at the time the
SDRAM standard was finally ratified. » More from EBN
Related Stories:
Rambus Wins ITC Ruling
Rambus Spreading Legal Wings? It's Simple Logic
Rambus Says It Has 'Three Ways To Win' |
