Posted on 04/24/2006 11:11:25 AM PDT by fso301
Rambus (RMBS:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) won a major court victory Monday when a jury found that South Korea's Hynix Semiconductor infringed on the company's patents.
A federal court jury in San Jose, Calif., found that Hynix, the world's No. 2 computer memory maker, infringed on all 10 patents at issue, and awarded Rambus $307 million, according to Pacific American Securities analyst Michael Cohen, who has been attending the trial for the past month.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestreet.com ...
Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!
I remember at the time they were modifying their pending patents to cover what was being publicly discussed at JEDEC. That's submarine.
Absolutely nothing wrong with amending claims as long as the written description of the patent supports the amended claim(s).
Rambus already received a summary judgement ruling of infringement by the judge on 11 claims before trial. The court limited Rambus to 10 claims in this particular suit. Rambus selected two they already had received summary judgement on plus eight others. The jury found infringement on all claims so, 19 claims have sofar been found to infringe.
Ok. Do you have something for us?
There's a big problem when you file a vague patent, and when others invent stuff you put that into your patent, and then it's patented to you.
I agree but as long as you are within the scope of your original invention, there is nothing improper, illegal or inequitable in filing an amended patent application for the purpose of obtaining a right to exclude a known competitors product from the market; nor is it in any manner improper to amend or insert claims intended to cover a competitors product the applicant's attorney has learned about during the prosecution of a patent application.
That is one thing that's wrong with our current patent system, when such actions are deemed acceptable. I'll bet you think Lemelson is a hero rather than a scam artist.
Nothing at all wrong with it. It's been a part of well established patent law for ages. Having it eliminates the need for an inventor to claim every theoretical possibility and keeps the patent office from being overwhelmed.
The memory manufactureres knew exactly what they were doing. They just thought they could do so and grind Rambus into the dust. That's not my personal opinion but a matter of fact. For more information on what actually transpired, I suggest that you read the 348 page Initial Decision by Chief administrative Law judge Steven McGuire of the Federal Trade Commission.
Ummm... No. I just hate Rambus. :-)
There's a lot wrong with it. Patents are supposed to cover your material innovations and reward your innovations with a limited monopoly. They are not supposed to reward your skill in expanding the text to cover the innovations of others. The latter is the direct opposite of the intent of the Constitution.
Luckily, some progress has been made to restrict that since the infamous Lemelson abuses of the system. He was able to patent bar codes after others invented them by tacking bar code technology onto his "machine vision" patents almost 20 years after the initial filing. As they say, "He didn't patent inventions, he invented patents."
They just thought they could do so and grind Rambus into the dust.
I know they were hoping to do that, but two wrongs don't make a right. I believe the overturning of Infineon's fraud victory was in error.
The law is never-the-less, still the law. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. However, should you find yourself in the position of being an inventor who after submitting your patent application to the PTO, shopped your invention around the industry but got a cold reception only to learn later (but before the patent was awarded) that companies you disclosed your invention to liked your idea and are now designing products around your claimed preferred embodiment, you will be very glad the law allows you to amend your claims assuming your written description fully supported the invention.
I know they were hoping to do that, but two wrongs don't make a right. I believe the overturning of Infineon's fraud victory was in error.
I could not disagree more vigorously. The judge (Robert E. Payne) in Richmond, VA was either a complete and utter fool (since he had no patent experience) or crooked. Based on the huge amounts of money involved, Payne's blatant bias, disregard for patent law and complete disregard of appellate decisions, crooked is the most likely category for him.
Again, I suggest that you spend the time to read the transcripts of the Appellate Court hearings (audio also available) and then reavaluate your opinion. If that isn't enough, spend a weekend and read the Initial Decision of Judge Steven McGuire in ""The Matter of FTC-v-Rambus".
Thank you for your reasoned opinion.
I have a friend who has been going through this very thing for years. But the companies are violating what he patented, he didn't change his patent to encompass what others had invented but could be covered by broad wording designed to encompass things he hadn't even envisioned.
But you're right, it is the law. But like copyright we've strayed far from the intent of the clause of the Constitution that authorized both.
I could not disagree more vigorously.
We will have to disagree there. Rambus was required by JEDEC rules to disclose pending patents, but didn't. Rambus' defense was that JEDEC didn't enforce the rules. That is a totally BS excuse. I agree with the jury in the very non-technical finding of fraud, not the technicalities and excuses used to overrule them.
I'm sorry but just because a crooked judge and whorish trade press says it was so doesn't mean it's true. Rambus had no duty to disclose. Had there been such a duty, the flaunting of such duty by the other JEDEC members and even the chairman himself would have negated any such duty.
The jury decided, not the judge, and I'm going off of court documents, not the press.
Rambus had no duty to disclose.
It was right there in the manual, so how not?
BTW, it's not like I don't appreciate Rambus' actual inventions. Their RDRAM made my Nintendo 64 rock back in the day.
The problem with such position is that the jury heard what the judge would allow it to hear. The judge had no pretense of objectivity. Whatever Infineon wanted was granted. Whatever Rambus wanted was denied. Furthermore, the jury also found Rambus guilty of defrauding JEDEC with respect to DDR. Rambus had already withdrawn from JEDEC before JEDEC began thinking about DDR. Even judge Payme had to overrule the jury on it's JEDEC DDR fraud ruling.
It was right there in the manual, so how not?
A duty to disclose existed only in the JEDEC chairmans manual. The JEDEC members manual communicated no duty to disclose whatsoever.
Sorry for the delay -- lots of reading. Looks like you're right. I still don't buy the "we didn't know" defense, as a company's lawyers should crawl all over the rules of any organization the company joins, but it hinges on them pulling out of JEDEC before the start of DDR2 meetings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.