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: Bilow who wrote (73198)	5/18/2001 1:11:04 AM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

I'm sort of surprised you could make this statement. If you read the Markman memo, it's clear that the file wrappers were hardly mentioned. The ruling came down to the claim and specification language. Heck, I'll retype a couple pages, I'm fast (citations omitted, my emphasis): If that is the case, and I have not read through all the documents in great detail, and thus why I have only spoke in generality, then RMBS' case to get the Markman ruling overturned on appeal is better than I initially thought. It was my fair that some part of the file history led the judge to conclude that bus meant multiplex. But if he read into this due to the preferred embodiment or interpreting the specifications he most probably erred and impermissibly narrowed the patent. It is the file wrappers that gave the court the most ammunition to narrow the patent definition as it did from what I understand of the patents in question. I also take this from the great confidence Rambus had going into these cases. The Markman ruling was a great shock to the Rambus attorneys to be sure. I think it was because it is generally impermissible to limit a patent in this matter on the basis that it appears Judge Payne did so limit it. In regard to the fraud charges I again have been speaking in generalities and have not taken the time to look in great detail as to what exactly is going on which is why I haven't commented any further in regard. But I will agree with you that this will be a more difficult issue to overcome on appeal. It will not be a de novo review like the Markman hearing, and the legal standard used was approved by an appellate court. Nevertheless, from the facts I have of the case, and here I have looked in detail, I still don't see how a rational decision maker could come to the conclusion of fraud. But that is juries for you. It is not the appellate courts job to re-weigh the juries facts. The appellate court will just look to assure the law was properly applied and that the jury could have found sufficient facts to make such a verdict on the fraud count. Tinker