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: NightOwl who wrote (73207)	5/21/2001 1:19:59 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

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. I am afraid I don't know what you are saying here. Surely you are not stating that the jury was/could be asked to make a factual "finding" as to the "legality" of making such a patent amendment? If you explain how that legal issue relates to the findings of the jury and the allegations of the counterclaim it would be helpful. Nightowl, I'm just catching up on a few responses quickly here so I apologize if this has been answered already. But you are correct in your statement that even if found legal Rambus' use of this legal right may have been procured fraudulently via inside information at JEDEC. The jury could certainly have decided facts like this. But what I think it comes down to is the appellate court deciding exactly what legally amounts to fraud in a case like this, and once decided, whether or not the jury could reasonably have found such facts to support the legal requirements. Quite frankly, and I haven't looked extensively, but from the facts I've seen, and many of them are contradictory, like how can one commit fraud if one's patents don't infringe to begin with (but leave that as it may) there are some serious questions here about whether a legal case for fraud actually existed, or existed in the way the jury was instructed. But I'll get back to you after I've taken the time to dig deeper. Tinker