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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Voltaire who wrote (16619)	11/15/2000 8:06:15 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Hello Voltaire, RMBS Info messages.yahoo.com Re: rambus forges ahead with QRSL link by: ptnewell 11/15/00 12:42 pm Msg: 190803 of 191025 Thanks for the link justmyopinion. Now someone here deserves kudos, but I can't remember whom. The speculation did appear here before that Toshiba was interested in QSRL for the next generation PlayStation. This link seems to confirm it: infoworld.com We also find out for the first time that QSRL is very low power, opening up other possibilities (e.g., laptops).

To: Voltaire who wrote (16619)	11/15/2000 8:29:12 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Hello Voltaire, RMBS & ITC messages.yahoo.com Re: RAMBUS LAW YERS by: itclyr 11/15/00 3:57 pm Msg: 190906 of 191037 Rambus did what any patentee who cares about its patents would do when informed that Judge Harris would be hearing the case: it exercised its absolute right to withdraw the complaint. 19 CFR 210.10(a)(5)(i) says "The complainant may withdraw the complaint AS A MATTER OF RIGHT at ANY TIME before the Commission votes on whether to institute an investigation." (emphasis added). Rambus was well within its rights, and I would counsel any client of mine who was the patentee to do the same. Any client who was a defendent before Judge Harris I would advise to cheer loudly. A few facts on Judge Harris: 1) He is NOT an "article 3" federal judge like a District Court Judge. He's an employee of the ITC who has been hired to act as an "administrative law judge." His rulings are appealed to the full Commission, not to federal court. Only the Commission's decision is appealed to Federal Court. 2) Judge Harris' overriding characteristic is an extreme hostility to patents. I've been before him a number of times and he has upheld a patent precisely once. 3) So extreme is his hostility to patents that he once "sua sponte" struck down a patent as invalid, even when the defendant had not even asserted the patent was invalid. When this decision reached the Federal Circuit, he was summarily reversed, and has since acquired the nickname "Sua Sponte Sid." 4) He's advancing in years and mercifully will retire soon. 5) The decision being quoted here is a classic illustration of just how bad he is, since he has no authority whatsoever to inquire into the motives of a complainant. Remember also it's just his pique that lawyers are beginning to get wise to his bias. 6) The Commision (to which Judge Harris' rulings are appealed) has reversed his findings of invalidity a number of times. 7) The fact that RMBS' lawyers were astute enough to withdraw the complaint illustrates again that RMBS is willing to retain the very best legal counsel and is another reason for confidence that it will ultimately prevail. ITC