Post from the fool on the trial...
boards.fool.com
Andrew,
I have to look closer at the details to understand legally what fraud was committed. Particularly since the patents were ruled to be non-infringed. As such, RMBS simply had no way to harm Infineon by any fraudulent behavior whatsoever. I don't recall Infineon paying a dime of royalties and it is not illegal to bring a patent suit in good-faith.
This, among other things is something I'm going to have to take a closer look at. Up until this verdict I was actually very, very, excited about the opportunity on appeal for Markman reversal. I had took a look into some of the relevant law on the subject and absent a few facts which I had not heard in evidence (doesn't mean they were not there) this judge had blatantly erred in his MArkman ruling. One cannot limit the scope of a patent by its preferred emodiment or by the specifications. On the surface this appears to be exactly what Judge Payne had done.
There are exceptions to this rule which largely involve the history of the file. As an example, did Rambus purposesly construe bus to mean multiplex bus in order to get patent office approval for some reason, like to assure novelty or avoid prior art. If so, they can't later try to broaden the term. I did not see any evidence on this, but perhaps that is a factor in the case that could play against us on appeal.
But absence these other factors the Markman appeal is looking very good. Then this fraud verdict comes along. This is not a simple situation and I haven't looked close enough at that count to know exactly what Infineon was saying or what law it was relying on in bringing that count. But the ramifications could very well foreclose RMBS prevailing over Infineon even if they do win the Markman hearing. As I get more time I'll try to take a closer look and see exactly what is up with that count. It does seem to be almost laughable.
(1) I fraudulently induced Infineon to vote for a standard that includes what I thought was RMBS IP.
(2) Court decides sua sponte that it actually is not RMBS IP.
(3) That in fact Infineon used said IP (which court says is not infringed) to help them develop their own SDRAM products.
(4) Infineon never actually paid a dime or otherwise for the assistance with the IP specs.
(5) Yet RMBS is still guilty for helping Infineon with their SDRAM products and owes Infineon $3.5 million in punitives to discourage them from ever helping Infineon again?
Yes, it does sound a bit perplexing. As with most I'm a bit stunned by this verdict. It certainly is not the end of RMBS. It is not even necessarily the end of SDRAM or DDR (I don't even know if this count, counts against DDR). In fact it would seem impossible to be an estoppel against DDR since DDR wasn't even in development at the time for Rambus to have any duty to tell Infineon anything. But I'm not making any assumptions here. I'll have to go back, read the pleadings, see if I can find the jury instructions and see what is up. This is not a normal case of fraud.
In the end, as the mantra has always been, it is RDRAM. The sad, tragic and ironic thing is, is that without any SDRAM or DDR royalties the stock price at this moment would probably be in the 30s a minimum:(. RDRAM news just continues to glow.
Meaning that this stock will be back. Perhaps eventually close to its former glory. But the psychology and percpetion is so negative right now I just won't hold my breath.
Tinker |
