On a company that had a fraud verdict go against them in a US court.
Heck that makes Dell a criminal company I would think and many others throughout history. But hey, those Rambus folks are criminals, right? A "deadly menace" to the industry.
As I said, Bilow, there is nothing credible about your perspective. Other than in your universe Rambus is the sworn enemy much like the "vast right wing conspiracy" was to Hillary and Bill. The only truth is the truth that besmearches Rambus.
But I am not going to respond to anymore of Bilow's personal jab points. My only purpose of doing so was to just point out, as if it really needed pointing out, that Bilow's information was not exactly without an agenda and not exactly, shall we say, spin free.
Tinker
P.S. regarding request for legal input on the situation by Sun Tzu. I wrote a column in regard on the Fred Hager site, I shall try to find it and post some excerpts. Overall, there are many weaknesses on both the fraud and the Markman count. None are so blatantly erroneous that a reasonable appellate court could not decide either way; however, IMHO, there are enough errors in both counts that Rambus does truly have a good chance on appeal, this is not just wishful thinking. I do feel some material errors of law were made. To add to this the Markman decision is to be reviewed de novo, which means as first impression without any deference to the trial judge. From reading Judge Payne's Markman opinion, it does become somewhat obvious that Payne is not experienced with dealing with cases of this sort. Certainly Payne's decision is well enough crafted and supported that it could well be upheld on appeal, however, it also seems to really be utilizing the wrong legal standard in the manner that he came to reaching his decision. I know Bilow will come back with what, "he dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's," well yes, except he seemed to do it from a standard that did not comport with the applicable standard. But that is for the appellate court to decide.
As for the fraud verdict, this is really a tough one. There does appear to be many really good areas for getting this overturned on appeal, but again, none of them completely certain. The appellate court will give the jury's factual findings, as long as the fact finding is credible, deference, this makes the appeal on the fraud count more difficult from the start. But still not a shot in the dark by any menas. But the fraud verdict may have the effect of issue preclusion if upheld on appeal. Meaning, if the facts in the Micron case regarding fraud are identical, that the Micron judge may be required to adopt the fraud count in his court as well. The same could hold true for some of the Markman decisions, not all, but at least arguably some. Given the differences in technologies and patents in suit, issue preclusion in the Markman issues are far from certain. I would really need to spend a few hours analyzing these issues to give a better answer. And I just don't feel the need to do so.
In fact, the probably reason Micron tried to intervene in the Infineon trial at such a late date is to try to put the issue of issue preclusion into the Micron case. A party normally cannot just sit back and wait and not intervene, and then claim issue preclusion, when that party could have intervened and protected their legal rights in the first case. By trying to intervene, Micron is trying to grab this element for their issue preclusion argument.
I think Micron made somewhat of a mockery in their motion to intervene, since it came so late.
So in conclusion, as it sounds like I'd need to teach a law class to communicate the issues: If both Markman and Fraud are upheld, Micron may attempt to apply issue preclusion in the Micron trial and have the judge rule as a matter of law that the Infineon decision, where applicable to Micron, must be upheld in the Micron court as well. Whether or not Micron will be successful at this will require much more research by me, as well as get over several complicating issues like the way Micron made a mockery of attempting to intervene at such a late date. It seemed, at least to me, to be a transparent attempt of stepping in almost at a risk-free time, making the gesture of intervening, when Micron was fully aware that they were far too late to be joined as a party.
I am not very familiar with European law so I won't comment. As for winning in Europe and not in U.S. I would think that any DDR produced in Europe, no matter where sold, would be subject to royalties, and that any DDR sold in Europe, no matter where manufactured would be subject to royalties. Leaving royalty free any DDR made in the U.S. and sold in the U.S.
But, this case has barely begun. What came out of the Infineon trial is not likely to be anything close to what eventually happens in the case. And most likely a settlement will be reached at some point.
Sheeesh, I forget how much law I know. But as a general perspective, without doing any extensive legal research specifically for this case, that is where things stand I think.
Tinker |
