To: Zeev Hed who wrote (775 ) 1/23/2000 2:41:00 PM From: Glenn Norman Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Yo_Zeev................I do not know about royalties being paid back on 10 years of some DRAM production, the "priority date" (1990 ) might be important in determining "the first to invent" and thus the validity of the claims in the 1999 patents relative to DRAM manufactured (and "invented" by the industry in the 1990 to 1999 period), but typically, royalties are paid "for the life of the claims" and thus would be due (if the claims are held to have priority on the body of development in the "submarine period") from the date of issue of the patent. yahoo.cnet.com The legal action springs from the vagaries of Rambus' history and the inner workings of patent law. The four patents involved in the suit were awarded to Rambus in 1999. However, they all date back for legal purposes to April 1990, when Rambus filed for its patents , Kanadjian said The industry's effort to promote SDRAM, meanwhile, didn't get kicked off until late 1991, he stated, while SDRAM chips didn't start rolling out until 1993. Rambus claims it showed its technology to Hitachi in the mid-90s and proposed a licensing agreement . Hitachi then incorporated this technology, according to the complaint and Kanadjian, into 100-MHz SDRAM and 133-MHz SDRAM chips as well as its SH family of microprocessors. Although Hitachi's actions, if true, seem calculated, Rambus does not have to show that to sustain a claim, which is why the suit has broader implications. Under the "prior art" doctrine of patent law, the date of the initial patent determines whether or not liability exists . If a second company develops identical or similar technology without access or knowledge of the original patents, the second company can still be held liable only because its invention came later. Zeev.....What am I missing here? - Norman!
