In a message dated 3/17/01 10:19:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Robert.Harley@inria.fr writes:
<< The smarmy attitude is helpful. Basically he is saying that the
100-headed hydra may be left with 10 heads still attached? >>
you can put it that way; it would be in keeping with your feelings that the
laws protecting intellectual poperty are "smarmy." or you can see it as your
one-eyed cyclops is vulnerable. <poke!> pay the royalties.
I presume you saw this...
"Infineon's attorneys argued that any delay in handing
over
documents that might have occurred was unintentional.
But
Judge Payne said he was "concerned" about what appeared
to
be "systemic nondisclosure" by Infineon.
March 16, 2001
Judge Delays Hearing of Rambus's
Patent Lawsuit Against Infineon
A WSJ.com News Roundup
RICHMOND, Va. -- A federal judge granted a request by
Rambus Inc. to delay the trial of its
patent-infringement lawsuit
against Germany's Infineon Technologies AG after Rambus
attorneys claimed that Infineon has failed to fully
disclose
internal documents that have bearing on the case.
Judge Robert E. Payne on Friday set April 10 as the new
start
date for the trial, which was previously scheduled to
begin
Tuesday. In the meantime, he ordered Infineon to
perform a
thorough search of all its employees' files and to make
sure that
no files, including computer files, are erased or
destroyed.
Infineon's attorneys argued that any delay in handing
over
documents that might have occurred was unintentional.
But
Judge Payne said he was "concerned" about what appeared
to
be "systemic nondisclosure" by Infineon.
"I'm not saying it's deliberate," he said, adding that
he is
determined to "get to the bottom of this."
Judge Payne ordered attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis, a
New
York firm representing Infineon, to send one of their
partners to
Infineon's German headquarters to make sure the company
understands and complies with his wishes. He is
considering
appointing a special master to go to Germany and
supervise the
records search.
The judge's order came in response to claims by Rambus
attorney David E. Monahan that documents provided to
his firm
late Thursday by Infineon were incomplete and contained
information suggesting there might be additional
Infineon files
that hadn't been disclosed.
In particular, the new documents described meetings and
telephone conference calls among Infineon executives
during
which Rambus's computer-memory technology was apparently
discussed. Some executives whose names were listed as
participants in those discussions have previously given
depositions in which they said they had "little or no
knowledge"
of Rambus's technologies, according to Mr. Monahan.
Judge Payne agreed to the Rambus request for a delay of
the
trial in part to give the company's attorneys time to
take new
depositions from those Infineon executives, including
Chief
Executive Ulrich Schumacher.
The delay comes after Judge Payne issued a pretrial
ruling
limiting the scope of Rambus's patent claims against
Infineon. In
a memorandum of opinion signed Thursday, but only made
available Friday morning, the judge limited the
definitions of
several key terms in his explanation of the legal
constructions he
will allow in the trial.
For example, Judge Payne wrote that he will consider
that "the
term 'bus' means a multiplexed set of signal lines used
to
transmit address, data and control information." Rambus
had
sought a broader interpretation construing "bus" to
mean any
lines or wires connecting memory devices.
Judge Payne's memo also tended to support Infineon's
views on
other technical terms involved in Rambus's dynamic
random
access memory, or DRAM, patents, including "block size,"
"read request" and "integrated circuit device."
The memo issued Friday confirmed a report Thursday by
ElectronicNews Online, published by Reed Elsevier Inc.'s
Cahners Business Information division, and SG Cowen
analyst
Drew Peck, which sent shares of Rambus tumbling 32%
Thursday. The stock continued to fall Friday.
Rambus, Los Altos, Calif., alleges in the suit, which
it filed last
August in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va., that
Infineon hasn't paid royalties due for using certain
Rambus
technologies related to memory-chip design.
Rambus said Friday in a statement that it maintains its
allegations of infringement against Infineon and that
it is
"prepared to protect its intellectual property" in
court.
The developer of chip technology has patent lawsuits
pending
against South Korea's Hyundai Electronics Industries
Co. and
Micron Technology Inc. of the U.S.
Meanwhile, the judge also ruled Thursday that Infineon
may tell
jurors of racketeering allegations against Rambus in its
countersuit. Infineon has counterclaimed that Rambus
violated
federal antitrust regulations and the Racketeer
Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, law.
In an effort to keep such accusations out of the trial,
Rambus
had asked Judge Payne for a summary judgment concerning
Infineon's counterclaim. But the judge decided not to
render
summary judgment, opening the window for Infineon to
bring up
the RICO allegations."
more hager opinion:
"From all the selling that happened today, one might think Rambus has
already lost the case. The price practically reflects this notion,
although we can't say it has hit bottom, or won't go lower. It seems
though, that the entire mood of the market, combined with this tenuous
situation resulted in the "perfect storm" of selling of Rambus' shares over
the last two days.
We believe Rambus' chances of winning this case are much stronger than
Infineon's, and as stated, there is much more to this case that will
determine the outcome than what has already been presented and ruled upon.
For starters, it still has to go to trial."
In a message dated 3/17/01 10:19:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Robert.Harley@inria.fr writes:
<<Yes, so let me rephrase: there is a significant likelihood that SDRAM
and DDR SDRAM will be found to not infringe most of the patent claims
that Rambus currently makes a big chunk of its earnings from.>>
<snip> continuing hager:
"Thinking long-term, we believe it is Rambus' core technology that is
currently shipping in the Pentium 4 from Intel, as well as in a number of
other devices, that will truly determine Rambus' outcome as a viable
investment. RDRAM memory has been established as a standard, and there is
little in the way of preventing it from becoming the dominant PC standard
in the industry. In a few years, this court case will be relatively
meaningless to Rambus' revenue stream. Combined with their current memory
technology, Rambus is expanding their product offerings and making inroads
into new and broader areas for revenue potential.
While it may seem like Rambus has lost a recent battle, they are not losing
the war."
<snippy>
"Another statistic for those keeping score at home, our research shows that
50% of all Markman verdicts are over tuned in appeals, in the event the case
goes that far."
here's mud in your one good eye,
gg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:18 PDT