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.

Non-Tech : The Critical Investing Workshop -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dutch who wrote (30979)	8/29/2000 6:48:12 PM
From: Dealer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35685

No problem Dutch! I can't find that opinion. Sorry! dealie

To: Dutch who wrote (30979)	8/29/2000 7:12:43 PM
From: Dealer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35685

Hey Dutch! Here it is nolimitz found it. MU suit by: itclyr 8/29/00 10:07 am Msg: 153029 of 153109 I was just checking in this morning and saw the news. Now things begin to get interesting. Here are a few thoughts on the lawsuit from my perspective as a patent lawyer. Re: general strategy. If MU really wanted to go all out they would have filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is the fastest court. My guess is that they realize RMBS is going to be more aggressive than they are, so they just went for Del. It doesn't seem to get them much, though. RMBS has 20 days (minimum, 60 days in some cases) to file their answer to the complaint. Look for them to take all of that time (it's free) and possibly to file their own counterclaims against MU for infringement. Don't be surprised by a motion from RMBS to dismiss the complaint as premature. You can't just file a pre-emptive strike just because a patent is out there you're afraid of. Unless RMBS' letters were directly threatening suit, MU may have jumped the gun in filing its declaratory judgment claims against RMBS for patent invalidity. RMBS could also move to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia, although such motions usually fail. Re: antitrust claims. I agree with icantbelieve's post on the SEL v Samsung case. I think MU will have a hard time with their antitrust case. However, the SEL case was decided by a judge in Virginia and is not binding on the Delaware court. Look for RMBS to cite its reasoning in a motion for summary judgement on the antitrust claims. I had some friends involved in the SEL case; it eventually resulted in SEL's patents being held invalid for deceiving the patent office (not something I think RMBS would ever allow). But the antitrust claims were apparently resolved early in SEL's favor. If this happens here then half of MU's case disappears. The more serious allegations may relate to the JEDEC meetings. However, this may be problematic too, because the FTC's decision against Dell (which all of the dramurai have been waving in the press as evidence) is again not binding on a federal district court and moreover was never subjected to appellate review by the US court of appeals for the Federal Circuit, the ultimate authority on patents (arguably more significant than the US supreme court). I would like to hear from any Silicon Valley engineers on the board who are familiar with exactly what happened at the JEDEC meetings. Although there could be a quick settlement, both parties seem to have fairly entrenched positions, and each has a lot to lose. Don't forget RMBS has publicly stated that it won't license infringement losers. MU has got to fear that. I wouldn't look for any fast resolution, though. Although this could take a long time, rembmeber that today is the first day on our road toward becoming millionaires. ITC