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: sergiotenenbaum who wrote (71505)	5/1/2001 10:43:51 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi sergiotenenbaum; From my read of the jury instructions, it seems that Infineon has quite a few ways they can avoid infringement: (1) The judge or jury could include no infringement on the remaining claims. (2) They could conclude that Rambus committed fraud against JEDEC. (3) They could conclude that Rambus was too slow in prosecuting their patent (prosecution laches). (4) They could conclude that the patents are invalid by reason of prior art. (5) They could conclude that the patents are invalid by reason of Rambus committing fraud against the Patent office. (6) They could conclude that Rambus has an unfair monopoly. (7) They could award Rambus royalties and damages that are minimal. (For instance 0.001% and $1,000.) (8) They could conclude that Rambus' actions at JEDEC amount to an implied license to use their technology for free. (9) They could conclude that Rambus' patents, (or at least the parts that touch on SDRAM) are obvious. (10) They could conclude that Rambus' patents are not written with sufficiently definite terminology to legally cover SDRAM. (Possible infringers get the benefit of the doubt, hence the Markman ruling on "bus".) (11) They could conclude that the later claims excede the bounds of the earlier patent claims and are invalid because of prosecution history estoppel (or some such other legal term, I'm just a "mom and pop" on the subject). But what I can tell you is that pretty much all the various Infineon defenses are still alive and well, it is Rambus that is having its alternatives eliminated. In addition, Infineon is asking for RICO tripled damages, and Micron just hired a hot shot lawyer who is famous for big damage awards. Some quotes from the parody that got me in trouble recently at SI: "The lucky lawyers, winners in the "shark-like" competition for representing the soon to be victorious memory manufacturers, are looking forward to taking a substantial percentage of the RICO tripled damages to be awarded." [Now verified in a Forbes article that Micron hired a big gun shark type. Does anyone really think that Micron is going to do anything other than go for the jugular?] "sent out a memo demanding that lawyers who had been attempting to shirk Rambus duty be more supportive of the company's clients, even if they are "white collar career criminals with no ethics whatsoever"." [Rambus lawyers are smiling as the case finishes quickly. Rumor on Yahoo is that they aren't even trying to prove infringement.] "the Rambus case is expected to not dwell for long on patent infringement. Instead, the suits are expected to immediately zero in on the question of what damages Rambus owes for their fraudulent conduct at JEDEC. Since Judge Thomas Payne, presiding over the Rambus v. Infineon case, made a Markman ruling completely in favor of the memory makers, legal interest in the case has been focused on the RICO charges." [This is word for word exactly what happened.] "Micron appears to be undertaking an attempt to generate as expensive a case as possible, with more than 200 docket entries and no trial in sight, so as to cause the triple damages to amount to as large a bill for Rambus as possible." [Indicated by the damage award specialist hired by Micron.] After the memory makers who signed for royalties on SDRAM sue Rambus, (look for Samsung to be among the first) I'll add this: "more are expected to be filed against Rambus by the eight memory makers that signed to pay royalties on SDRAM and DDR to Rambus over the last year." -- Carl

To: sergiotenenbaum who wrote (71505)	5/2/2001 1:00:15 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Evening ST, Could this mean that if this jury (if it gets there) finds in favour or RMBS on the fraud JEDEC charges, RMBS could come back after IFX with different patents (hopefully with a different Markman ruling)? Could the other JEDEC members claim fraud in their lawsuits against RMBS after this jury’s finding? This is what I have been speculating about this past weekend, that the preferred course of action would be a new lawsuit not an appeal (this Markman , dog, won’t hunt). MU petitioning to join this case might also mean that if RMBS prevail in this case on fraud, MU won’t have that defense anymore. I don't know what Robertson meant by his comments. I can certainly imagine circumstances in which RMBS might bring subsequent suits on different patents against IFX no matter what the jury finds regarding the fraud and RICO claims. But I have to stress that for them to bring such subsequent action related to claims involving SDRAM/DDR if they loose on the present infringement claims would be truly unique in my experience. I have never known a corporation to bring a "litigation to the death" action, lose and have sufficient strength and/or insanity to come back for another round. I know speculation on such possibilities is part of the "fun" of investing. RMTR, my one true love<vbg>, has been engaged in patent litigation since I first met her in 1996. But its no where near as interesting as this RMBS "stuff." Its like a sequel to "Gladiator" every night.<VBG> The more information which comes out the more it appears to me that neither RMBS nor its lawyers thought that IFX would fight. I think their attorneys, and thus RMBS itself, have known the Markman risks they faced before the suit began. And I believe that they felt compelled to run that risk because it was the only way they could survive competition between DRDRAM and SDRAM/DDR. Frankly just considering the IFX victory against the Motion to Dismiss, and the Judges reported comments this week concerning the long "silence" of RMBS regarding pursuit of its SDRAM/DDR infringement claims, I suspect that there is more than a nominal risk of the Court entering a directed verdict for IFX on the fraud and RICO claims, leaving only the question of damages to the jury. Of course this is all just my midnight speculation; but in the end I don't think RMBS has any options left. They can't simply accept a loss on infringement and hope for a victory on the fraud or RICO claims and forego any appeal to come back again another day. IFX is going to appeal any adverse ruling it may get on the fraud/RICO actions and, if it doesn't cave, RMBS has to appeal the Markman/infringement defeats. Death Litigation is sort of like membership in JEDEC. You can chose to play the game or not. But once you start its like hell trying to get out with your patents in tact. And most importantly you had better have your facts straight before you make the call. I am just guessing at all this, but I think RMBS had the "facts" and was willing to bluff. 0\|0