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: Dave B who wrote (68728)	3/22/2001 12:57:21 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Evening Dave B., The number of posts on the thread this evening was something of a surprise. I initially assumed that someone must have caved on some suit. But I see its the content of the Infineon documents which has every one up in the air. I know you are not a lawyer and there is nothing personal intended in this, but your comment provides as good a focal point for my view on these documents as any. You said: You [ed., "Carl"], on the other hand, have claimed that Rambus only went after SDRAM and DDR when RDRAM sales weren't as they had hoped. Clearly, the IBM guy chairing the JEDEC group said that Samsung had been approached in 1992 about SDRAM royalties. Not surprisingly the contemporaneous documents of the parties from the period of RMBS JEDEC participation, as does your comment, use quite a bit of shorthand terminology. In this case you seem to place great weight on the notion that Samsung was contacted in 1992 about "SDRAM royalties," and that this was widely known, at least by JEDEC members. I assume you are saying that what RMBS had sought, in 1992, were royalties on its 1992 and prior issued patents since those were the only patents it had at the time. And I further assume that what you and the IBM guy are saying is that RMBS was seeking royalties under those 1992 and prior patents against a IC product that Samsung was making under the SDRAM terminology. In my view this simply means that RMBS has always "interpreted" its 1992 and prior patents as a very broad based IP. It is also apparent that many members of the DRAMURAI disagreed with this "interpretation." To my knowledge neither Samsung nor anyone else paid RMBS "SDRAM royalties" prior to the issuance of the 1999 patents. Moreover, based on the Markman rulings it appears that RMBS has been "misinterpreting" the central meaning of material portions of its 1992 and prior patents until this very year. At this point I have no idea whether ANYONE in 1992,93-2000, correctly understood the scope of the 1992 and prior years patents held by RMBS. I know now that at least in 2001, IFX understands material aspects of them better than RMBS itself. Perhaps this should more reasonably be addressed to Pompsander, but I have a hard time seeing that what RMBS DID in fact disclose to JEDEC members while it was there has any relevance, unless that disclosure included the "Patent Claim" language which it had then filed, or then intended to file, in the post 1992 period. It appears from the known facts that RMBS itself did not believe its 1992 and prior patents covered the initial iterations of SDRAM sufficient to enforce claims of royalties. It certainly did not act on those claims. JEDEC members had every right to disagree with RMBS' asserted coverage of "SDRAM" IP for its 1992 and prior patents. And they had the right to determine their course of action (avoidance, acceptance, retirement) based upon THEIR view of the formal, official, lawful, binding claim language blessed by the patents issued by the Patent Office. It appears to me, using the most unbiased view I can muster, that it matters little what RMBS told JEDEC members that it "intended" or "believed it achieved" by that sacred patent language, whether as part of Zeev's NDA's or otherwise. Patents are a two edge sword. It appears to me that IFX is arguing that it had no duty, obligation or reason to "guess" at PO blessed RMBS patent claims to come. That they were a better "judge" of the patent claims that were known at the time than was the inventor. Further that there were new "hoped to be blessed" patent claims relevant to JEDEC's business pending before the departure of RMBS from the club. And that RMBS had a duty to disclose those knowing the nature of JEDEC's business themselves. And perhaps most importantly, IFX is effectively claiming that SDRAM and DDR are free and clear of coverage by the 1992 and prior patents issued to RMBS and that since those concepts were "invented" through the JEDEC process [with or without RMBS' voluntary assistance] prior to the issuance and JEDEC knowledge of the subsequently issued RMBS patents, no royalties can be imposed. Again what RMBS or anyone else "thought" or said about the scope of the original patents won't be interesting to the Judge as far as infringement is concerned. What will be important is what the Court decides they mean today. Everything else will be relevant only to the RICO and JEDEC counterclaims as best I can tell. RMBS would be sitting pretty today and likely have no competition whatever for the "bus" had they either not joined JEDEC, or simply disclosed all their patent applications so as to give the JEDEC members an opportunity to work around them. If all the important SDRAM DDR technology is in fact RMBS' creation as many RMBSers claim, whose to blame here? IFX for using this public domain information? (RMBS is not suing on any NDA rights as far as I know.) Or RMBS for giving it away? 0\|0