The story unfolds
There’s a huge story to be told about how the FTC goes after Rambus. Look at who are involved in FTC and see the connection to Micron.
Basically, FTC is going after the wrong party – Micron, Infineon et al has been found to be in breach of Anti-trust laws during the discovery - yet FTC is going after Rambus. It’s “Tucker” all over again – the large semiconductor companies can’t stand that someone else invented the better mousetrap and that they should pay fees for using that new technology.
Direct links:
stocksandmoney.com
Appellate court decision: ll.georgetown.edu ml
Letters beings sent to Congress: congress.org
FTC new on the Rambus case: ftc.gov (they still quote the overturned conviction AFTER it was overturned)
Rambus brief to FTC: ftc.gov
---------
Hager's latest newsletter:
"There are many reasons why I think a settlement is imminent. I studied an extensive analysis of the implications of the recent CAFC decision in the Rambus case by Calbert Crary an Attorney and friend of mine who makes his living writing reports about patent litigation. His reports are for institutional investors. His telephone number is 203-226-2888.
The Federal appeals court decision changed the ball game and here is why: the lengthy, detailed, and well reasoned decision of judges Rader and Bryson will force the Virginia court to find Rambus' patents have been infringed. There may not even be a trial, but a summary judgment because there is no genuine issue of material fact that remains to be decided in a trial.
The Federal trade commission's case against Rambus has been tremendously weakened by the Appeals Courts (CAFC) decision. Given the political influence that Micron's attorneys, who were former Federal Trade Commission officials, have demonstrated to wield, the FTC may continue the case against Rambus. If Rambus loses, Rambus will appeal the decision and it would then be out of the hands of the FTC. However the FTC will most likely drop their case earlier.
The three litigants will now probably begin losing market share to companies that have licenses with Rambus. After the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision, those that continue to manufacture products covered by a Rambus patent are willfully and knowingly infringing, and so are those who buy from these manufacturers. With treble damages applicable, this is a dangerous and very costly game.
An additional catalyst to settlement is the fact that Rambus is in a strong position to demand a large lump sum payment for back royalties and higher royalty rates than what they had originally asked for before the litigation. If the three litigants settle now, Rambus may be more interested in ongoing royalties than in getting a huge payment up front. Big one-time payments don't do anything for their stock, however ongoing royalty will.
What could also be important, if as part of a settlement, any of the three litigants provides evidence to the FTC, that the memory manufacturers could neither find, nor develop alternative technologies to Rambus', that JEDEC could have used. This would of course remove the Federal Trade Commission's argument that, if Rambus had not tricked JEDEC, JEDEC would have used alternative technologies.
We have learned that Infineon asked for and was granted an extension of time to request an en banc review by the CAFC (Court of Appeals). The new deadline to ask for a review is February 26, 2003. |
