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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (858)	8/15/2007 11:01:43 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

I agree that the Dell and Rambus cases do not directly apply. However, I think they are indicative of where things are going. Rudi relied primarily on the ITU and JVT disclosure obligations, which were binding on Q. I think a fair reading of them, especially the ITU's, obligated Q to disclose. Recall that both disclosure regimes applied. I agree that we'll have to disagree on whether Q knew of the obligation to disclose as I see very little wiggle room in the ITU's and the JVT's disclosure obligations. These are good faith, best efforts obligations, as is set forth in detail at pp. 6-8 of the opinion. Q's knowledge of the obligation to disclose is set forth in equally good detail at pp. 13-16. Finally, that there were IPR issues concerning the patents is specifically stated by a Mr. Yun. See p. 19 of the opinion. See also the Kilpatrick to Raveendran emails mentioned at p. 21 which specifically mention the Digital Cinema patents and the JVT in the same sentence. It appears absolutely indisputable that the IPR issue was on Q's mind at the time. Given its knowledge and the good faith, best efforts obligation to disclose, any doubts about disclosure or nondisclosure should have been resolved by doing the prudent thing - disclose - especially as it became apparent that its IPR was being incorporated into the standard. From what I can see in Brewster's opinion, Q will have a lot of difficulty in trying to convince an appellate panel that Rudi got it wrong. The unfortunate thing is that if there was any doubt about the correctness of Brewster's ruling, such doubt is going to be looked at by the appellate panel in the dubious context of the Q's lawyers litigation misconduct. There is no telling on which issue the appellate judges will focus, but the misconduct issue is a lot sexier and may be seen as more important as it deals with the integrity of the judicial system. As I see it, the case was loser even if the misconduct had not occurred.

To: slacker711 who wrote (858)	8/15/2007 11:39:34 AM
From: mindykoeppel	Respond to of 9132

Carranza - are you saying that Q participated in the standard body that approved EDGE without declaring CDMA patents that were used in GSM/EDGE. I know Q is now saying that they have GSM/EDGE IPR but it is the use of CDMA in those EDGE phones that is the infringement so I thought. Please advise because you have me very very confused. Or it may be the use of WCDMA in the EDGE phones that is the sticking point. Altman I believe clearly said that the license agreement precluded Nokia from using any kind of CDMA in a NON dual mode phone i.e. GSM/WCDMA or UMTS. And did Q sit on the standard board that approved EDGE? Because Irwin said EDGE would NEVER see the light of day! Thank you.

To: slacker711 who wrote (858)	8/24/2007 10:45:55 AM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

slacks - Shock and Awe 29th August - Based on nothing but Carras and your psots and Rudis judgment I predict two of whatever parts there might be to next Wdnesdays hearing. 1. Legal Shock and Awe - Whatever that might be. A record breaking fine? How big . I have asked but no-one can give any guidlines. How big can historic be? Well if the court is not limited then more than tens of millions? 2. Whatever they decide they will do it piecemeal. After Wednesday we will be wating for more decsions from this hearing, wainting for more hearngs etc. Someone seems to have worked out that the best way to damage the Q is to keep up constant pressure and keep the market waiting for decsions. Part of that might be what happens to the people whose testmony Rudi comments on in his judgement. What might these people say and about who? Plenty of room for a separate show out of that lot. Then the lawyers? Slap on the wrist? Doesn't feel like that. What could be the prognosis here? Again scope for a continuing series here. Best, L

To: slacker711 who wrote (858)	8/24/2007 1:11:24 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

The EC and Rambus: Statement of Objections issued. You have referenced this elsewhere but I don't think anything on the specific subject has been posted here. The "patent ambush" proceedings are the first of its kind under EU anti-trust law. >> Rambus Receives European Commission Statement of Objectives Rambus Press Release Los Altos, CA, United States 08/22/2007 Rambus Inc. (NASDAQ:RMBS) today confirmed that the European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections against the Company alleging violations of European Union competition law. The Statement of Objections follows complaints set forth by certain DRAM manufacturers originating with Rambus’ 1992-1995 participation in an industry standard-setting organization, the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council ("JEDEC"). "The issues raised by the European Commission include Rambus’ participation in JEDEC that ended over a decade ago," said Thomas Lavelle, senior vice president and general counsel at Rambus. "These are largely the same issues examined by a number of US courts, the Federal Trade Commission, and currently before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We are studying the Statement of Objections and plan to respond in due course." A Statement of Objections is a procedural step in the European Commission's antitrust investigation, in which the Commission communicates its preliminary view with respect to a possible infringement of European Union competition law. The European Commission will review responses to the Statement of Objections in order to determine whether to issue a final Decision. Any Decision would be subject to appeal to both the European Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice. The Company will present its response to the Commission's Statement of Objections over the next several months. Rambus first filed a patent application for its revolutionary memory technology in 1990 and proceeded to teach the industry how to apply that technology, subject to nondisclosure agreements. By invitation, Rambus later joined a JEDEC committee that was developing a DRAM standard. Today, Rambus' industry-leading memory architecture solutions can be found in dozens of products including personal computers, servers, workstations, video game consoles, high-definition TVs, set-top boxes, and networking routers and switches. About Rambus Inc. Rambus is one of the world's premier technology licensing companies specializing in the invention and design of high-speed chip architectures. Since its founding in 1990, the Company's patented innovations, breakthrough technologies and renowned integration expertise have helped industry-leading chip and system companies bring superior products to market. Rambus' technology and products solve customers' most complex chip and system-level interface challenges enabling unprecedented performance in computing, communications and consumer electronics applications. Rambus licenses both its world-class patent portfolio as well as its family of leadership and industry-standard interface products. Headquartered in Los Altos, California, Rambus has regional offices in North Carolina, India, Germany, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Additional information is available at www.rambus.com. EU Commission Charges Rambus with "Patent Ambush" Reuters (Brussels) August 23, 2007 The European Commission confirmed on Thursday that it had formally charged U.S. electronic chip maker Rambus (RMBS with deceptive "patent ambush" for claiming "unreasonable royalties". The company announced on Wednesday it had received a so-called "statement of objections". The announcement by the Commission, the European Union's top antitrust regulator, fleshed out details of the charges. The Commission said Rambus had "engaged in intentional deceptive conduct in the context of the standard-setting process" by failing to disclose the existence of patents it later claimed were relevant for a standard that was adopted. It said an appropriate remedy would be for Rambus to charge a reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty rate. Rambus makes dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) for use in computers, communications and other consumer products. DRAMs had been standardised by an industry-wide U.S.-based standard setting organisation, JEDEC, the Commission said. "Rambus owns and is asserting patents which it claims cover the technology included in these JEDEC standards," the Commission said. "Therefore, every manufacturer wishing to produce synchronous DRAM chips or chipsets consequently must either acquire a licence from Rambus or litigate its asserted patent rights." In its announcement on Wednesday, the company noted that this was not the first legal action over its patents. "These are largely the same issues examined by a number of U.S. courts, the Federal Trade Commission, and currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit," Rambus General Counsel Thomas Lavelle said in a statement. "We are studying the statement of objections and plan to respond in due course." ### - Eric -