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: Don Green who wrote (72019)	5/5/2001 11:16:16 AM
From: Don Green	Respond to of 93625

Rambus case thrown out 213.219.40.69 Judge Payne rules against underdog By Mike Magee, 5 May 2001 00.30 BST THE JUDGE IN THE CASE against two computer companies, Infineon and Rambus, has decided that Infineon has no case to answer against Rambus, Associated Press reported late yesterday. But the game is not quite over. According to this local news report, the jury will next argue about allegations of fraud and also about legal costs in the affair. Not much of a surprise that the allegations of patent infringement were thrown out, given the narrowing of the case both pre-trial and during the case itself. Yesterday at The Inquirer we were uncharacteristically blunt and said that investors reading stories about huge DDR royalties and hoping for vast returns would only cause people as thick as planks to invest in Ramboost. But the thickos put money into RMBS, despite our well reasoned warnings. As a top American said 120 years back - there's one born every minute. It makes you kind of ashamed to be supposedly the most intelligent mammal on the planet, sometimes. And worse - the only ape that wears a suit. There must have been some kind of last throw there, and we hope there's a class, and when we say class, we mean class action along the line... But far from being quashed by the summary judgement doled out by Judge R.E. Payne, Rambus will fight on unabashed against others it claims have violated its fast memory bus, we are given to understand. It will also appeal against the ruling. Here we should say that quite a few techies and disinterested bystanders we've spoken to over the last few years say that the Rambus memory model does indeed have its merits. That isn't really the point at issue here. Perhaps instead of wasting company money on very expensive court cases against huge companies like Infineon or Micron, it should look to its own house, and in particular the arrangement it made with Intel to promote the Rambus technology, which so incensed the PC industry and created common cause between firms not normally bed partners. Shares were suspended on Wall Street but the case came just before the closing of the markets, so not much was knocked off Rambus stock. Although RMBS confessed itself 'disappointed' at the news, it apparently intends to waste more money on lawyers fees and on an appeal, according to a short statement made by Geoff Tate, Rambus' CEO after the trial shut. "If today's decision is allowed to stand, all companies that innovate risk having their intellectual property rights unjustly expropriated" bleated a spokesperson on behalf of the firm. But the trial has already cost Rambus dear, as we have reported before. Surely it is time for Rambus to stop, before the longs risk their entire pensions on a tortuous legal claim that could go on forever. The CEO, Geoff Tate, for starters, might consider his own position at the firm, and fire the lawyers who of course are laughing all the way to el banco. The Rambus press statement is an outrage. He said: "We will not be cowed by the aggressive tactics of some industry giants." That's pretty rich, we reckon. The hoof, of course, was on the other foot when Rambus had Intel on its side as we reported when we worked at another place. According to influential local rag the Wall Street Journal, > dg ??? the news about the trial collapsing came from a Morgan Stanley analyst called Mark Edelstone. There is a story there somewhere, we think. But it's Friday, and so few will tell it... µ

To: Don Green who wrote (72019)	5/5/2001 11:20:18 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

TIMES-DISPATCH: Infineon is victor in court Judge tosses out claims by Rambus BY MCGREGOR MCCANCE TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER May 04, 2001 A Richmond federal court judge yesterday erased claims of patent infringement against computer memory chip maker Infineon Technologies AG. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne ruled that Rambus Inc. failed to show enough evidence to forward the claims to a jury. The final three claims joined 54 others from the original lawsuit that already were dropped or tossed. The ruling shatters Rambus' hope to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties on certain types of memory sold by Infineon, whose sole chip plant in the United States employs 2,000 in eastern Henrico County. Court observers say the ruling also could jolt the foundation of Rambus' existing royalty agreements with other memory manufacturers that elected to strike deals instead of risking expensive, drawn-out lawsuits. Rambus, a California company that designs and licenses technology used in memory products, said it will appeal Payne's ruling. "Rambus will continue to fight to protect our intellectual property," CEO Geoff Tate said in a statement. "Though Rambus is a relatively small company, we will not be cowed by the aggressive tactics of some industry giants who would take our innovations without any compensation." Rambus shares plunged on the news. After a temporary halt in trading, the stock closed down 20 percent to $14.60. Payne also issued other key rulings yesterday. In one, he said he will allow the jury to decide on an Infineon counterclaim that Rambus engaged in fraudulent behavior under federal laws. Infineon claims Rambus stole memory specifications from an industry organization while it was a member of the group, based new patent applications on the technology and later used the patents in an attempt to corner the computer memory industry. The judge tossed out two Infineon claims. One alleged that Rambus attempted to monopolize the memory market, which would have been a violation of antitrust laws; the second alleged a breach of contract. Lawyers continued last evening to argue a second fraud allegation, as well as whether Rambus would be liable for $562,000 in fees lawyers racked up in connection with the Infineon case. Though the case can be tied to broad, global business and technology issues, the judge's decision to dismiss the infringement claims relied literally on microscopic evidence. Essentially, the argument was reduced to the tiny lines or wires that carry information through computer components such as memory chips and other chip features. Infineon said Rambus didn't come close to proving that the technology used in Infineon's chips matches the Rambus technology, though Rambus said one of Payne's early rulings on technical definitions handcuffed its case throughout. Rambus has licenses with all of the world's top producers of its primary technology, found in Rambus-dynamic random access memory. Claims and counterclaims began to fly last year, however, when Rambus said its patents also cover two other memory types that are considered industry standards. The company has cases pending against other chip manufacturers including Micron Technology Inc. A suit also is pending against Infineon in Europe. Micron is expected to rely on some of Payne's rulings to bolster its case. Industry analyst Mark Edelstone, who downgraded Rambus' stock yesterday, suggested widespread ripple effects from Payne's decisions and what the jury might decide. "If the courts rule these patents are invalid, you have to wonder how long these other companies are going to want to pay royalties," Edelstone told The Associated Press. timesdispatch.com