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: richard surckla who wrote (57072)	10/8/2000 5:03:01 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

An opinion from Hadleysnose on the FOOL Regarding the change of venue and RMBS' dropping the ITC complaint, my impression was that RMBS was doing everything it could to get quick action on the merits (the substantive challenges, if any, to its patents) and seeking to undercut legal actions by MU and possibly now by Infineon, which have arguably been aimed more at creating delay and confusion, than at actually attacking RMBS patents. I would speculate that RMBS reasons for dropping the ITC complaint are related to the doctrine of "exhaustion of remedies." Generally, courts won't hear your case if you havn't "exhaused your administrative remedies," appeals, hearings and so on. RMBS lawyers may feel that, in any legal action, Hyundai would seek postponement of adjudication of "the merits" until a "lower," administrative review (ITC) was completed. That would mean a year, I gather. By saying that it would now sue Hyundai for patent infringement and seek injuctions to bar imports as part of that infringement action, RMBS apparently aims to act like a litigant who really wants the court to decide, rather than a litigant stalling for time or trying to fragment an opponent's case by maneuvering. By going for the earliest possible "real" adjudication, RMBS also "telegraphs the message" to its opponents, that's it's playing hardball. It re-enforces the possiblity that RMBS will ACTUALLY deny licenses to those MMs who force litigation and lose. In a nutshell, my layman's impression is that RMBS regards the MU declaratory judgement action and Infineon infringement suit, as extra-legal maneuvering, partly for PR to prevent any "undecided" MMs from signing up, partly to try to affect RMBS by scaring its stockholders and creating negative buzz in the marketplace. My sense is that RMBS is aggressively declaring: "Put up or shut up, on the merits."