Hi tinkershaw; Re: "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."
The purpose of JEDEC's patent policy is to make it clear what royalties the standard may infringe on. This is only significant in the event that the company with the patent asks for royalties. IBM, for instance, didn't ask for SDRAM royalties, so they didn't get sued for fraud.
And anyway, just because someone else broke into a house doesn't mean that another criminal can't be convicted. Do you think that if everybody speeds, then no one can get a ticket? The legal system doesn't work that way. Just because other companies, for instance, defraud little old ladies by failing to pave their driveways doesn't mean that you can't convict another company from doing so. Why don't you file a lawsuit against IBM? On the other hand, what is the damages that you're going to assert? Go back and read through the five points required to prove "fraud" in court and you will see why IBM didn't get convicted, but Rambus did. You're an attorney, why don't you show me how the IBM actions constituted fraud. By the way, I'd like to hear you defend someone for being a peeping tom.
Re: "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."
Rambus couldn't claim ownership without the "multiplexed" restriction. All four of their elements were in the prior art as general purpose design techniques. (I've given very complete reasoning with regard to the DLL claim here: #reply-15817491 complete with references to prior art, and why Rambus could not therefore patent the concept of using the DLL with any old kind of memory.) The only thing new they brought to the party was the multiplexed bus. That's why the original 1990 Rambus patent excludes language restricting the claims to a bus with considerably fewer lines than the address size: "wherein the multiline bus has a total number of lines less than a total number of bits in any single address". (see #reply-15529407 for links) I don't think this was a mistake, I think it was necessary because of the prior art I refer to above. By the way, it is not necessary that the patent office reject the broadening of using "bus" instead of "multiplexed bus" in order for the restriction to be to the multiplexed bus. All that is necessary is that Rambus leave the general case, "bus" outside of their patent claims. That's what they did. Then they tried to extend their claims over the lost material but failed.
Re: "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."
Why don't you simply go read the Judge's Markman decision, and find fault with it? At this point in time, Bilow is not the primary proponent of the concept that Rambus doesn't have patent coverage for SDRAM. So making arguments about what I've written is a waste of time. At this point, the legal system has decided the issue. Why don't you quote the decision, with all its citations ., and write a brief for the opposition? Why post to me about this? It's Wall Street and the Federal Courts that have put RMBS into a world of hurt, not me. At this point, merely pointing out that you have doubts about the decision doesn't cut it. Show exactly which reasoning in the Judge's memorandum were in error and show cases supporting your argument. That's what Infineon did, why should you get away with flimsier arguments? You're a lawyer, now go do some research and prove it.
Nobody cares about your opinions when you admit that you haven't even bothered to dig "into the nitty gritty" of the case. The rest of us did dig into it, which is why we are quoting at length from the trial documents, with links. Go quote from the documents if you really want to help. At least lie about it, and claim that you've read all the documents, looked up the citations, etc. Right now, all you're doing is providing FUD, not clarity, and your FUD would be more effective if you simply claimed to have read all the documents.
Re: "I am still trying to discover these blatant acts of fraud."
I didn't have any trouble finding them, but then again, I'm not a "very good attorney", LOL. I guess that means I wouldn't be able to charge a client for time spent searching for something that everybody already knows. I wonder what you charge per hour... Anyway:
Docket 220, pages ~98 to ~105:
"There is evidence here from which a reasonable jury could conclude that at the pertinent and appropriate times, the JEDEC policy required disclosure of patents, both actual and pending, on any matter being considered at a JEDEC meeting for the purpose of establishing a JEDEC standard.
... ( #reply-15631925 with links)
There, now I've provided you with a point by point description, written by the judge. Why don't you reply to that, instead of to your guesses and armies of straw men?
-- Carl
P.S. richard surckla just noted that Rambusite is moving. Here's the new link to the above Judge's statements re fraud:
216.119.82.72 |
