Re: Rambus uppcomeance

Date: Sat Mar 17 2001 - 10:03:50 PST

In a message dated 3/17/01 10:19:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, 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
                      documents that might have occurred was unintentional.
                      Judge Payne said he was "concerned" about what appeared
                      be "systemic nondisclosure" by Infineon.

March 16, 2001

                      Judge Delays Hearing of Rambus's
                      Patent Lawsuit Against Infineon

                      A 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
                      internal documents that have bearing on the case.

                      Judge Robert E. Payne on Friday set April 10 as the new
                      date for the trial, which was previously scheduled to
                      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

                      Infineon's attorneys argued that any delay in handing
                      documents that might have occurred was unintentional.
                      Judge Payne said he was "concerned" about what appeared
                      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
                      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
                      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
                      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
                      of Rambus's technologies, according to Mr. Monahan.

                      Judge Payne agreed to the Rambus request for a delay of
                      trial in part to give the company's attorneys time to
take new
                      depositions from those Infineon executives, including
                      Executive Ulrich Schumacher.

                      The delay comes after Judge Payne issued a pretrial
                      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
                      transmit address, data and control information." Rambus
                      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
                      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
                      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
                      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

                      The developer of chip technology has patent lawsuits
                      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
                      federal antitrust regulations and the Racketeer
Influenced and
                      Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, law.

                      In an effort to keep such accusations out of the trial,
                      had asked Judge Payne for a summary judgment concerning
                      Infineon's counterclaim. But the judge decided not to
                      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, 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."


"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,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:18 PDT