dick...
Do ya think the Dell case mentioned here:
www6.tomshardware.com
that set a precedent whereby Dell could not collect licensing fees on patents developed under an open standards organization that it participated in - do ya think that legal precedent won't bite lil 'ol Rambus on the backside?
dick... you got some splain'n to do...
theregister.co.uk
COUNTERCLAIM
Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs Hitachi Semiconductor (America) Inc. and Hitachi, Ltd. (together, “Hitachi”), by their attorneys, counterclaim as follows against plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”).
Nature of Action
57. This counterclaim seeks damages and injunctive relief as redress for, and relief from, Rambus’ anticompetitive, exclusionary and unfair conduct in the semiconductor computer chip industry.
58. Rambus has engaged in anticompetitive, exclusionary and unfair conduct directed at its competitors, which is intended to monopolize and unfairly restrain trade, and to engage in unfair competition in the relevant markets for: (a) synchronous DRAM interface technology; (b) memory chips that implement that technology, called Synchronous DRAM (“SDRAM”) chips; and (c) logic chips that include memory control technology to work with SDRAM chips (“Logic Chips”), such as memory control circuitry in chip sets, processors, or in ASIC chips.
59. Rambus’ anticompetitive conduct stems from its intentional and improper violation of the rules of the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council (“JEDEC”) Solid State Technology Association, the semiconductor engineering standardization body of the Electronic Industries Alliance (“EIA”), a non-profit standard-setting organization open to the industry and designed to foster competition in the several markets for computer chips, and from its anticompetitive and unfair licensing practices.
60. In the 1990s, JEDEC coordinated the development of technology standards for high-speed memory known as Synchronous DRAM or SDRAM, so that memory from different suppliers would be compatible with each other and with the modules and systems that use such memory. Rambus was a JEDEC member at that time and attended meetings called for that purpose. But instead of participating in the JEDEC standard-setting process in good faith, Rambus subverted the process, attempting to use it as a vehicle to control illegally the relevant markets.
61. JEDEC’s rules, designed to prohibit the kind of activity by Rambus at issue in this case, required Rambus to disclose to that organization and its members the existence and nature of certain of Rambus’ patent rights and pending patent applications. Instead of disclosing that information, as required, Rambus improperly revised its pending applications and subsequent applications that were based on the then-pending applications, to cover what it learned from its participation in JEDEC and the disclosures of other JEDEC members and participants.
62. Without knowledge of Rambus’ pending applications, which were maintained in secret, JEDEC determined an industry standard for synchronous DRAM interface technology. Rambus now asserts that certain of its patents, including patents arising from applications that were revised to reflect what Rambus learned from the other JEDEC members and participants, cover the JEDEC SDRAM interface technology standards. If Rambus’ assertions are correct, this would mean that products that follow the previously open JEDEC standard would infringe Rambus’ patents.
63. Rambus’ misconduct became apparent only recently, after Rambus obtained certain patents and asserted them against Hitachi products that are compatible with the open JEDEC standards for SDRAM.
64. Rambus has further engaged in anticompetitive and unfair conduct by illegally seeking to extend the scope of its patent portfolio through unfair license agreements and illegal tying arrangements.
65. This counterclaim also seeks a judgment declaring unenforceable all United States patents and patent applications owned by Rambus that are related to an April 18, 1990 initial application, Serial No. 07/510,898 (collectively, the “Related Family”), which includes, but is not limited to, United States Patent Nos. 5,915,105 (“the ‘105 Patent”), 5,953,263 (“the ‘263 Patent”), 5,954,804 (“the ‘804 Patent”), 5,994,443 (“the ‘443 Patent”) 6,032,214 (“the ‘214 Patent”), and 6,032,215 (“the ‘215 Patent”) (collectively, “the Patents in Suit”). This counterclaim further seeks a judgment declaring the claims of the Patents in Suit invalid and not infringed.
66. This counterclaim additionally seeks a judgment declaring unenforceable all United States patents and patent applications owned by Rambus that are related to any patent applications filed by Rambus while Rambus was a participant at JEDEC meetings or that include changes derived from knowledge Rambus obtained from JEDEC members and participants (collectively, the “Additional Patent Rights”). |
