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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (51788)	8/29/2000 5:07:05 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Ten A good case can be made for negligence on the part of Micron. They could have asked Rambus whether SDRAM or DDR that they planned to produce infringed any patents pending. Rambus could then answer yes or no without prematurely disclosing the contents of its patents pending. If they had done this then some duty may have fallen to Rambus. But it never happened. This never happened. JEDEC is just a code name for Micron, NEC, Hitachi, etc.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (51788)	8/29/2000 6:55:12 PM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Well, I don't know much, or anything is probably a better description, about the patents at issue and what the defenses are but I bet prior art is one of them. And obviouness. So crafting an argument that hey, we didn't think they were patentable ideas and besides they were part of JEDEC so we proceeded accordingly, is not a losing broken kettle story. But the JEDEC part is going to be a bit tricky, I would suspect, but Rambo did pull out which may look like a sneaky act. I have also been told that some of the IP the patents covered were being sold commercially by IBM way before 1 year when RMBS finally applied. So, I think it is tough to evaluate where we are at this point. It can't be a plus for MU and who knows how much of a negative it will turn out to be. As for Rambo, I guess it would be a negative if most investors were thinking this was a done deal industry wide when the other license agreements were signed. It will be a positive if they win but that is a ways off. And it will be a knife in the heart if they lose.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (51788)	8/29/2000 8:13:26 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: <MU's position will no doubt be that the patents are invalid and even if they are valid are unenforceable due to JEDEC.> That's what the lawyers call a "broken kettle" defense. No, it's called "pleading the alternative", and to not include the alternative causes of action that arise from a particular set of facts would be malpractice on the part of the attorney. If one count fails the other can be pursued, and they can both be appealed. If the alternative is not plead, that cause of action is considered to be waived and cannot be appealed. Dan