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: jim kelley who wrote (52797)	9/7/2000 4:17:25 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Legal Q & A Thanks Jim, here is another one to mull over This one courtesy of Itcyr This gentleman represents himself as a patent attorney. his personal opinion is posted here for anyone interested. From Yahoo: Re: Legal questions by: itclyr 9/7/00 2:38 pm Msg: 157395 of 157439 There have been several legal questions raised today. Don't have much time but I'll try to answer. 1) Yes, RMBS can refuse to license MU if RMBS wins in court. I was reviewing recent decisions yesterday when I came across a decision from a Pennsylvania court dismissing an antitrust complaint against a patentee (different facts from RMBS). The court stated: "It is not misuse of patent rights for a paentee to deal only with those with whom it pleases, and a patent holder is allowed to maintain its monopoly over the patented product by refusing to license. Similarly, a patentee may even suppress an invention and deny its use to all others." from Sheet Metal Duct, Inc. v. Lindab Inc., 55 USPQ2d at 1485, citations omitted. Consider that last fact. RMBS could REALLY favor RDRAM over DDR by refusing all licenses for it. The fact that they are allowing licenses for their DDR patents (albeit at a higher royalty) is one of the reasons I think MU's antitrust allegations will fail. Additionally, it would make far more sense to refuse a license after litigation than to allow one. That is because it would already be entitled to past damages for any infringement, and any future "lost royalties" would simply be paid by the increased output from another licensee. Why should RMBS reward MU for dragging it through millions of dollars of litigation, when other licensees didn't force them to waste resources on it. The only good fact is that the patents would emerge as all but unbreakable, and nobody else would challenge them over the stench of MU's rotting corpse. 2) RMBS has 20 days to answer the complaint, and will almost certainly include counterclaims for infringement IF it doesn't move to dismiss MU's complaint altogether for lack of a "case or controversy." As I've stated before, you can't drag a patentee into court anytime you find a patent whose technology you want to practice. You have to have a reasonable fear of a lawsuit. If RMBS did no more than seek to initiate discussions, that may not be enough to create a reasonable fear. Existence of the Infineon suit is of course a countervailing factor. I don't know how a court would decide such a motion, but it is at least possible RMBS could seek dismissal to focus on the Infineon case. 3) Don't have time for the Unocal case research yet. Maybe tomorrow.