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 (73224)	5/21/2001 3:29:53 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

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. Ahhh, but this is not so clear-cut. Particularly with patent applications. Rambus was definitely, and this is not even disputed, the only company there not to disclose patents or patent applications. Amongst these companies were IBM. In regard to the file wrapper elements. It goes to the history of the file and how things were to be defined. Just because a specification in the patent states "multiplex bus" doesn't mean that the patent is limited to a "multiplex bus." In fact, it is an error for the judge to infer such a limitation. Now, this would be a different case if RMBS' patents, in order to avoid prior art or to be novel or otherwise be valid, had to mean "multiplex bus" when the patent was filed, and the patent office therefore demanded it. This being the legal standard: Without file wrappers the patent should not have been read so narrowly by the judge, with patent wrappers (and RMBS would have been fully informed of this as patent wrappers are basically just file history of the patent) the judge would have no choice but to read it narrowly. Would Rambus have been so confident in their case, and so cocky, and would the industry have caved so quickly (well 1/2 of it) to RMBS SDRAM demands (and in the Infineon case documents were found going back to 1992 stating that IBM and others thought they might be in violation of RMBS IP with SDRAM) if RMBS had so restricted or been required to restrict their patents by the patent office, when the patents were applied for? It could just be that Rambus counsel and management were darn right stupid. But I think more is going on here. The history of the patent filing would be no big secret. Rambus counsel would know if the termnilogy of the patent had to be limited when the patent was filed. RMBS executives would know. Given the way Rambus and their counsel, and 1/2 the industry approached these patents, what I infer is that the file wrappings we are discussing here were just not material to this case. Instead, what Judge Payne did, was make a decision out of left field that shocked Rambus' legal team given the legal standards I stated above. He inferred a restriction on the term bus from the specs or the preferred embodiment of the patent. Now, this is from the bleacher seats. I am a very good attorney, but I am in no way a patent specialist. I also have not dug into the nitty gritty of the case. But from everything I have seen and heard, based upon the legal standard I stated above, it does not appear that these "file wrappers" or file history elements were material to Judge Payne's decision to narrowly interpret the patent. If this is the case, then RMBS has a very good case of overturning the Markman ruling on appeal. In regard to the fraud count, there are many legal elements that are unclear. But this will indeed be a tougher issue to overturn. On same legal basis (we don't know if the legal basis was correct or not, and that will be decided on the appeal) the jury found that sufficient facts existed to find RMBS had committed fraud. I am still trying to discover these blatant acts of fraud. Tinker