Hi tinkershaw; Re the file wrappers... It is my understanding that the primary purpose of the file wrappers is to prevent the doctrine of equivalents from being used to capture IP that was given up. As far as the Markman being reversed, you can go back and read the Memorandum to get the citations.
Re: "I also take this from the great confidence Rambus had going into these cases. The Markman ruling was a great shock to the Rambus attorneys to be sure." Rambus has a long history of saying things that don't turn out to be true. They are constantly opining that RDRAM is going to soon be as cheap as SDRAM, they've been saying this for four years. Over two years ago, they announced that Micron would be in volume production of RDRAM within a year. Micron still isn't. Besides this, Rambus' own employees didn't think that their patents covered SDRAM at the time.
Re: "In regard to the fraud charges I again have been speaking in generalities and have not taken the time to look in great detail as to what exactly is going on which is why I haven't commented any further in regard." Understood.
Re: " Nevertheless, from the facts I have of the case, and here I have looked in detail, I still don't see how a rational decision maker could come to the conclusion of fraud." You've likely been hearing the Rambus filtered version of events. The BS is piled high and deep around here, to see the fraud, perhaps you should read the following (short) court documents:
rambusite.com
rambusite.com
rambusite.com
Basically, the fraud is that Rambus submitted signed ballots for SDRAM but failed to write on them that they had applicable patents and patent applications. There's a spot on the ballots, and Rambus left it blank. They remained silent when questions as to this were asked, etc.
The Rambus people have various excuses for this. Maybe I've left some off, if so I'm sure I'll hear about it:
(1) Rambus is an IP company, what did JEDEC think they were doing with SDRAM? Ans: There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Rambus to show up at JEDEC meetings. For example, they could have been voting on SDRAM standards so as to ensure that the core for SDRAM memories would be similar enough to the core for RDRAM that manufacturers would be able to use the same research to improve both types. But at base, this excuse is like saying that "you knew your brother in law was a scrap metal dealer, why are you surprised that he walked away with some of your silverware?"
(2) Other companies, (IBM in particular) didn't declare patents. Ans: While this may be true, (I don't think it was proved at court), it is also the case that IBM isn't asking for royalties on SDRAM, and if they did, they'd get into the same trouble that Rambus got into.
(3) Rambus' patents and applications did not originally cover SDRAM, so they had nothing to declare. Ans: This is flatly contradicted in the confidential Rambus business documents brought to light in discovery. Hyundai got the court to take the wraps off of these documents and they got published in industry. This excuse is like a child's excuse for doing something wrong.
(4) JEDEC didn't have an understandable patent policy. Ans: The court decided that the JEDEC patent policy was clear enough. Basically, the JEDEC policy amounts to the concept that companies that develop an industry standard must be up front and honest about what royalties they will charge for it. Rambus snuck one in on the industry.
(5) Rambus had released their technology in NDAs to most of the various JEDEC parties. Ans: This is true, but it doesn't excuse the patent notification. For it to be a rational excuse at all, Rambus would have to show that they had signed NDAs with all the JEDEC participants. In addition, the Rambus NDAs did not include the claims that they would be asserting, so there was no way that industry could figure out from them that Rambus would claim IP included in SDRAM.
-- Carl |
