Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (51647)	8/29/2000 8:13:04 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 93625

That may be one reason, Carl; another reason is that they're the primary U.S. based DRAM manufacturer, and the foreign firms are not as comfortable with the litigious US system. I just looked up the Hitachi filings at the Register; interestingly, Hitachi filed in Delaware also. The Hitachi filings can be seen at theregister.co.uk and theregister.co.uk. Again, I assume this is a useful preview. On the antitrust question, which seems to have totally befuddled local techno-legal experts, see the second and third points below. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE By reason of Rambus’ misconduct relating to standard-setting activities and organizations, including but not limited to JEDEC, if one or more of the Patents-in-Suit cover the JEDEC standard, Rambus is obligated to license the Patents-in-Suit without charge or under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination, such that the defendants may make, use, sell, or offer to sell products which implement the JEDEC or other standards. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable due to misuse and/or inequitable conduct and/or violation of the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, due to the actions and concealment of Rambus in connection with standard-setting activities and participation in standards-setting organizations, including but not limited to JEDEC; Rambus’ participation in the creation of industry sanctioned and/or de facto standards for Synchronous DRAMs; and Rambus’ illegal attempts to eliminate or capture any JEDEC-approved standards for Synchronous DRAM technology which might compete with proprietary Rambus Synchronous DRAM technology. Attempts by Rambus to enforce the Patents-in-Suit constitute misuse, monopolization, an attempt to monopolize, and/or an unlawful restraint of trade. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable due to misuse and/or inequitable conduct and/or violation of the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, due to the actions of Rambus in licensing the Patents-in-Suit pursuant to Technology Agreements which obligate third parties including Hitachi to manufacture Rambus products under Rambus-dictated specifications and which discriminate against non-Rambus products and alternative technologies, thereby excluding potential competitors from the market and/or raising the costs of entry into the market by competitors. These actions have an anti-competitive effect and improperly attempt to extend the limited rights existing under the Patents-in-Suit, so as to constitute misuse, monopolization, an attempt to monopolize, and/or an unlawful restraint of trade. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable by operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, on grounds including but not limited to Rambus’ failure to disclose adequately its intellectual property interests to JEDEC and Rambus’ amending its pending patent claims, if products with Synchronous DRAM technology conforming to the JEDEC-approved industry standards infringe upon Rambus’ patents. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Patents-in-Suit are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with the patent statute including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, 113, 120 and 121. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE By reason of proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecutions of the family of applications leading to the Patents-in-Suit, the claims of those patents were limited by prosecution history estoppel, as well as by the prior art, so that Rambus is now estopped from maintaining that the Patents-in-Suit are of such scope as to cover or embrace any of the accused products or processes. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE By reason of Rambus’ conduct, including its participation in standards-setting activities and organizations including but not limited to JEDEC, Rambus has granted the defendants an implied royalty-free license under the Patents-in-Suit to make, use, sell, or offer to sell products containing the alleged inventions. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable in law and equity by operation of the doctrine of waiver. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable in law and equity due to the unclean hands of Rambus. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Patents-in-Suit are not infringed. The Register's news story of the day is Micron sues Rambus in antitrust action theregister.co.uk in which Mike Magee anticipates the Rambus response: The usual first move in this type of legal gavotte is for the party being sued to say something along the lines of "we will contest this suit vigorously". ® Cheers, Dan. P.S. Island book is showing RMBS trading 74-75. It's just so unfair for Rambus to take a hit from the threat of legal action.