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: tinkershaw who wrote (73202)	5/18/2001 3:16:16 AM
From: The Prophet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Just to clarify re this series of posts, the appellate court did not make any specific finding of fraud. Rather, the court of appeals simply determined not to grant an interlocutory writ, preventing discovery on an issue which the judge found could lead to admissible evidence of fraud. Second, a finding of fraud by the jury in this context was a mixed question of fact and law. If, for example, the court of appeals finds that it is legally permissible to amend claims to include inventions covered by the original specification in the original patent, then it would difficult to support a legal conclusion of fraud, even if the jury purported to make a factual finding to that effect.

To: tinkershaw who wrote (73202)	5/18/2001 4:55:59 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 93625

S. Tzu was correct. This has been the best give and take today.<vbg> Most of the "regulars" have learned not to cross "briefs" with Carl.<g> I certainly would never dream of it. Once you give him access to the written word, he is death on the opposition. As I am unfamiliar with your methodology and logic I have some questions. 1. In reply to Carl's assertion that Judge Payne did not make the file wrapper information a significant element of his analysis you said: "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, *[discussion of embodiments, specifications, RMBS attorney shock omitted]* 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." I don't understand that last sentence. I assume you are saying that: - RMBS lawyers were shocked. - They were shocked because it's impermissible to limit a patent primarily based on the Court's view of preferred embodiments and specifications. - The reason that it's shocking is because it "appeared" to RMBS counsel that Judge Payne used the impermissible form of analysis. As you posted this after Bilow's response (#reply-15817638) to your suggestion of repeated dishonesty on his part, in which he sites relevant portions of the Court's own explicit statement of the limited use of preferred embodiments and specification language in arriving at its Markman Ruling; are you saying that RMBS counsel either (a) failed to read the Court's ruling; (b) did not understand the Court's ruling; or (c) believed the Court lied as to the analysis used to arrive at a conclusion? Please suggest an alternative explanation for their "shock" being in any way related to a "belief" that the Judge incorrectly analyzed the evidence in his ruling. No need to retype the language as Carl did. If you could simply advise me of the "shocking" judicial statement to be found there I will be happy to go read and verify it for myself. 2. Much has been written concerning what the Court found and IFX argued regarding the inventive "multiplexed bus." I am wondering whether or not you know what RMBS asserted as the meaning of that phrase? If so I would be very grateful to hear you describe the RMBS interpretation. I myself don't see how the Court could have accepted the suggested interpretation of RMBS without casting serious "doubt" on the "inventiveness" of the basic RDRAM patent itself. Certainly all would agree that the central element of "creativity" in the RDRAM patents is the "nature" of its chip to chip bus concept. My question results from an inability to understand how "multiplexed bus" could retain its distinctive character for patent purposes if the Judge had accepted the interpretation put forth by RMBS. Then, I am just a Mom & Pop investor with no ability to count or type very fast, let alone understand electricity. The implications of RMBS, committing such an error of logic is "shocking" to me.<vbg> ...But then again, I was "shocked" by RMBS counsel taking the position, in a pre-trial conference call, that they didn't have a definition or meaning for some "claim language" in issue. But I am probably easily "shocked."<vbg> I look forward to your reply. Please remember to speak slowly. I have to carefully absorb each word or it just doesn't get through the skull structure.<g> 0\|0

To: tinkershaw who wrote (73202)	5/18/2001 2:27:47 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi tinkershaw; Re the file wrappers... It is my understanding that the primary purpose of the file wrappers is to prevent the doctrine of equivalents from being used to capture IP that was given up. As far as the Markman being reversed, you can go back and read the Memorandum to get the citations. Re: "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." Rambus has a long history of saying things that don't turn out to be true. They are constantly opining that RDRAM is going to soon be as cheap as SDRAM, they've been saying this for four years. Over two years ago, they announced that Micron would be in volume production of RDRAM within a year. Micron still isn't. Besides this, Rambus' own employees didn't think that their patents covered SDRAM at the time. Re: "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." Understood. Re: " 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." You've likely been hearing the Rambus filtered version of events. The BS is piled high and deep around here, to see the fraud, perhaps you should read the following (short) court documents: rambusite.com rambusite.com rambusite.com Basically, the fraud is that Rambus submitted signed ballots for SDRAM but failed to write on them that they had applicable patents and patent applications. There's a spot on the ballots, and Rambus left it blank. They remained silent when questions as to this were asked, etc. The Rambus people have various excuses for this. Maybe I've left some off, if so I'm sure I'll hear about it: (1) Rambus is an IP company, what did JEDEC think they were doing with SDRAM? Ans: There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Rambus to show up at JEDEC meetings. For example, they could have been voting on SDRAM standards so as to ensure that the core for SDRAM memories would be similar enough to the core for RDRAM that manufacturers would be able to use the same research to improve both types. But at base, this excuse is like saying that "you knew your brother in law was a scrap metal dealer, why are you surprised that he walked away with some of your silverware?" (2) Other companies, (IBM in particular) didn't declare patents. Ans: While this may be true, (I don't think it was proved at court), it is also the case that IBM isn't asking for royalties on SDRAM, and if they did, they'd get into the same trouble that Rambus got into. (3) Rambus' patents and applications did not originally cover SDRAM, so they had nothing to declare. Ans: This is flatly contradicted in the confidential Rambus business documents brought to light in discovery. Hyundai got the court to take the wraps off of these documents and they got published in industry. This excuse is like a child's excuse for doing something wrong. (4) JEDEC didn't have an understandable patent policy. Ans: The court decided that the JEDEC patent policy was clear enough. Basically, the JEDEC policy amounts to the concept that companies that develop an industry standard must be up front and honest about what royalties they will charge for it. Rambus snuck one in on the industry. (5) Rambus had released their technology in NDAs to most of the various JEDEC parties. Ans: This is true, but it doesn't excuse the patent notification. For it to be a rational excuse at all, Rambus would have to show that they had signed NDAs with all the JEDEC participants. In addition, the Rambus NDAs did not include the claims that they would be asserting, so there was no way that industry could figure out from them that Rambus would claim IP included in SDRAM. -- Carl