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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (75157)	6/29/2001 1:54:40 PM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 93625

Hello Skeet, I don't know what Tinker is doing but it reminds me a great deal of the "style" of RMBS trial counsel in Virginia. As to the Motion For Injunctive relief I have no opinion as the Rambusite has seen fit not to publish all the briefs on the issue. I wonder if they realize the significance of that Motion? <vbg> All I can say is that the Court is taking it seriously and appears to be willing to delay the outcome in order to have more briefs submitted. This is not something that this District Court does without reason. Frankly, I am glad to see it as I wasn't impressed by the initial briefs filed by either party. In the end I believe the decision will turn on just how EVIL the trial court finds RMBS conduct to have been. ...Not that the court will give this as the primary factor. But in no case will the court preclude RMBS claims to DRDRAM or RDRAM as defined by its original patents. It isn't being asked to do this and the court wouldn't go that far, or apply its ruling to other manufacturers without being asked unless it had concluded that RMBS was in fact SATAN himself.<vbg> Its too bad all the pleadings on this aren't available on the WWW. It would indeed be interesting. If I were RMBS I would be hoping that the court entered the Injunction. It would be their best chance for finding error on appeal. If I had to guess, I think the Court would try to do "justice" here by finding ground for limiting future suits by RMBS on SDRAM and DDR for sure, and that what it is having trouble with are future iterations of DDR-II, DDR-III, etc. I say this simply because the Court must be aware that if it says "No Injunction," RMBS will run around asserting that its a green light to future suits involving all products. IMHO, that is not something this judge could or should permit under the circumstances of a "clear and convincing," 4.5 hour Fraud verdict. So I'd have to guess that the there is a likelihood of "some" sort of Injunction. Probably based on any extensions or revisions of the original patent. In the most analogous situation I can think of, i.e. equitable estopple, the new patents would retain validity but simply lose the benefit of the original patents filing date. Of course this is not an equitable estopple case, but the Motion For Injunction brings similar issues into play. Perhaps the added briefs will flesh out the equitable distinctions between such situations. 0\|0