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: Sully- who wrote (73668)	5/25/2001 5:32:50 PM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

So it's not over... It will continue in Milan as wstera 02 has reported... Friday May 25, 4:55 pm Eastern Time Press Release Rambus Patent Infringement Case Against Micron Technology Continues in Italy Monza Court Judge Declines to Grant Preliminary Injunction LOS ALTOS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 25, 2001--Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS - news) today announced that its patent infringement case against Micron Technology will continue in the District Court of Milan following the conclusion of preliminary proceedings in Monza. The Monza Court judge, overruling the findings of the court-appointed, independent experts, declined to grant Rambus a preliminary injunction. The court-appointed experts confirmed the validity of the Rambus patent in suit and determined that Micron's SDRAM products infringe the Rambus patent. Dr. Paolo Stucovitz and Dr. Giorgio Crovini, both members of the Roll of the Intellectual Property Attorneys and degreed engineers, were appointed as the technical experts by the Monza Court. Their technical examinations lasted over five months encompassing all pertinent prior art information and potential infringement of the Rambus patent by the Micron SDRAM products. Their exhaustive report concludes that Micron's SDRAM memory devices fall within the scope of the Rambus patent. ``We are disappointed with the Monza judge's decision to overrule the conclusions of the expert report,'' said Geoff Tate, CEO of Rambus, ``but we look forward to receiving a full hearing on our infringement case against Micron in Milan. Rambus is committed to protecting its intellectual property, and it is our right, as well as our obligation to our shareholders to take all the appropriate measures to protect our patented innovations.'' ``Though we are in litigation to protect our inventions, we at Rambus are extremely proud of the business that we have built since our founding in 1990,'' stated Geoff Tate. ``Over a decade ago, Rambus solved a difficult challenge to bring computer memory speed in line with advances in microprocessor technology. We are very pleased with the success and growth of the core Rambus RDRAM business. Together with our partners, we will innovate and deliver high bandwidth Rambus system solutions that meet the increasing performance requirements of our customers.'' About Rambus Inc. Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS - news) designs, develops and licenses high bandwidth chip-connection technology and provides the comprehensive engineering support necessary for a complete system solution. Rambus' technology and intellectual property are licensed to leading semiconductor suppliers including DRAM, controller and microprocessor manufacturers, ASIC developers, and foundries for use in computer, consumer and networking systems such as personal computers, workstations, servers, game consoles, set top boxes, digital HDTVs, high-speed switches and routers. Contact: Rambus Kristine Wiseman, 650/947-5319 (Public Relations) pr@rambus.com Susan Berry, 650/947-5050 (Investor Relations) ir@rambus.com Email this story - Most-emailed articles - Most-viewed articles More Quotes and News: RMBS - news Related News Categories: computer hardware, computers, semiconductors, software

To: Sully- who wrote (73668)	5/25/2001 5:56:30 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

A fairly adamant POV from the G&K thread...... From: ardethan Friday, May 25, 2001 5:47 PM Just to call out the differences for those who are interested, but haven't followed the story closely. This is the most recent in a long, long line of lies by Jack Robertson. I don't mean misstatements, or deceptions. Lies. Jack said: -The technical panel just upheld the "validity" of RMBS' patents. -The court overruled them, and dismissed the case. In fact: -The technical panel didn't just upheld the validity, they also found that Micron clearly infringed. -The judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Micron (presumably to stop them from making/selling SDRAM in Italy), and instead booted the case up to a higher court. I can't speak for Italian law, but I know that in U.S. law, declining to issue an injunction is by no means a finding that the defendant is right. E.g. in U.S. law I believe you look at four factors, including the likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and the harm done to the plaintiff in the interim by not enjoining. In this case, it doesn't really harm RMBS if the judge doesn't enjoin and they end up prevailing, and it could substantially harm Micron if he does enjoin, and they end up prevailing. In RMBS' case, they'd get back-payments anyway. In Micron's case, their manufacturing / marketing operations could be severely disrupted. Again, I don't know Italian law at all, but refusing to offer an injunction can be the right move, even if the defendant is unlikely to prevail on the merits. ____________________________________________________________ Ö¿Ö