Just to call out the differences for those who are interested, but haven't followed the story closely.
This is the most recent in a long, long line of lies by Jack Robertson. I don't mean misstatements, or deceptions. Lies.
Jack said:
-The technical panel just upheld the "validity" of RMBS' patents.
-The court overruled them, and dismissed the case.
In fact:
-The technical panel didn't just upheld the validity, they also found that Micron clearly infringed.
-The judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Micron (presumably to stop them from making/selling SDRAM in Italy), and instead booted the case up to a higher court.
I can't speak for Italian law, but I know that in U.S. law, declining to issue an injunction is by no means a finding that the defendant is right. E.g. in U.S. law I believe you look at four factors, including the likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and the harm done to the plaintiff in the interim by not enjoining.
In this case, it doesn't really harm RMBS if the judge doesn't enjoin and they end up prevailing, and it could substantially harm Micron if he does enjoin, and they end up prevailing. In RMBS' case, they'd get back-payments anyway. In Micron's case, their manufacturing / marketing operations could be severely disrupted.
Again, I don't know Italian law at all, but refusing to offer an injunction can be the right move, even if the defendant is unlikely to prevail on the merits. |
