SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin
RMBS 101.61+2.8%Dec 5 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jim kelley who wrote (72617)5/11/2001 7:47:34 PM
From: SBHX  Read Replies (2) of 93625
 
Jim

Unless there is a clause in their contracts with their licensees Rambus will not have to repay any Sdram royalties. You simply have this wrong.


I was wondering about that. That's the caveat emptor thing. Remember that there were two counts of fraud in there that they were found guilty of. It's the actual fraud that is the problem (see below)


Trial Verdict Just In...
May 9th

It appears that the jury in the Rambus vs. Infineon trial have ruled in favor of Infineon on Count 10 Actual Fraud and Count 11 Constructive Fraud. On Count 14 RICO the jury ruled in favor of Rambus. Punitive damages of $3.5 M was awarded to Infineon which the court capped at $350,000.


fredhager.com

If the contracts were entered into where one party actually knew that they did not actually obtain the patents legally, does that mean the contract was negotiated in bad faith (fraudulently)?

If so, does that create grounds for recovery of payments?

Unless the actual fraud conviction is overturned, I doubt if rmbs will walk out of this intact. But of course, I could be wrong. I was wrong when I thought the SDR/DDR patents are a slam dunk, and that the entire PC industry was screwed for years to come.

SbH
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext