The Motley.Fool
Attn.: Mr. Rich Duprey
Re: Rambus' Rambling Lawsuits
Mr. Duprey:
With respect, I suggest that you follow the first sentence of your article . . . "If at first you don’t succeed try, try again."
You state “that the results have been inconsistent and have potentially damaging consequences.”
Inconsistent? As to litigation occurring within the US, the only inconsistencies have been spawned in Judge Payne’s courtroom. In VA.01 – the first RMBS v IFX round, Judge Payne was soundly reversed by CAFC and the US Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In VA.02 – the second RMBS v IFX round, Judge Payne will again be subject to the review by CAFC. Will Judge Payne be reversed? Time will tell. However, if Judge Payne is reversed and CAFC allows him to try, try again, Judge Payne would be well served to review how Judge Whyte out in California, who has far more experience in intellectual property disputes, runs a patent trial.
“Potentially damaging?” As compared to what? Should Rambus meekly allow other corporations to steal its intellectual property? I can not imagine that result would be less damaging. Here is Rambus’ decision tree – spend money on lawyers protecting assets or just make more assets and wonder if a bully will steal them as well. Simply a “no-brainer” decision.
“Inconsistent” as to the FTC? Nope, not yet anyway. FTC ruled in Rambus’ favor.
Could VA.02 “reverberate throughout the industry”? It could or it could not have any real consequence other than to employ lawyers to file and fight motions. It is not likely that Judge Whyte in Hynix v. Rambus will follow Judge Payne’s lead. Judge Whyte will reach his own decision – just like he found dozens of infringed claims while Judge Payne found merely three!
What will happen in the MU v RMBS trial? Mere speculation is all that either you or I can offer. You choose to spin the speculation negatively against RMBS – “could reverberate”. I choose to spin in the opposite – “not have any real consequence”. In theory, you are objective and balanced. In reality, you are not.
With regard to litigation pending in Europe – different patenting system and different legal system. The result has not been in Rambus’ favor. This fact does not preclude Rambus being paid royalties for its intellectual property described in the “revoked” patent. You could have explained this in your article. Rather, you chose to leave a negative hanging without analysis. Again, your spin.
“Some analysts have noted that Rambus had a duty to announce its patents.” (Patents or patents pending?) Aren’t you getting dizzy? Some analysts have noted otherwise. In fact, forget the analysts and read what has been written from the bench. The CAFC killed this issue. The FTC killed it as well – although it wasn’t a pain-free death. Yes, the FTC has been petitioned for consideration before the full commission. Time will tell. Again, your spin.
Please, try, try again – because your efforts at objectivity and balance – didn’t succeed.
Treowth*
*A word which each one understands in his own way, according to his own needs, as it suits him. Mendele
Attn.: Mr. Rich Duprey
Re: Rambus' Rambling Lawsuits
Mr. Duprey:
With respect, I suggest that you follow the first sentence of your article . . . "If at first you don’t succeed try, try again."
You state “that the results have been inconsistent and have potentially damaging consequences.”
Inconsistent? As to litigation occurring within the US, the only inconsistencies have been spawned in Judge Payne’s courtroom. In VA.01 – the first RMBS v IFX round, Judge Payne was soundly reversed by CAFC and the US Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In VA.02 – the second RMBS v IFX round, Judge Payne will again be subject to the review by CAFC. Will Judge Payne be reversed? Time will tell. However, if Judge Payne is reversed and CAFC allows him to try, try again, Judge Payne would be well served to review how Judge Whyte out in California, who has far more experience in intellectual property disputes, runs a patent trial.
“Potentially damaging?” As compared to what? Should Rambus meekly allow other corporations to steal its intellectual property? I can not imagine that result would be less damaging. Here is Rambus’ decision tree – spend money on lawyers protecting assets or just make more assets and wonder if a bully will steal them as well. Simply a “no-brainer” decision.
“Inconsistent” as to the FTC? Nope, not yet anyway. FTC ruled in Rambus’ favor.
Could VA.02 “reverberate throughout the industry”? It could or it could not have any real consequence other than to employ lawyers to file and fight motions. It is not likely that Judge Whyte in Hynix v. Rambus will follow Judge Payne’s lead. Judge Whyte will reach his own decision – just like he found dozens of infringed claims while Judge Payne found merely three!
What will happen in the MU v RMBS trial? Mere speculation is all that either you or I can offer. You choose to spin the speculation negatively against RMBS – “could reverberate”. I choose to spin in the opposite – “not have any real consequence”. In theory, you are objective and balanced. In reality, you are not.
With regard to litigation pending in Europe – different patenting system and different legal system. The result has not been in Rambus’ favor. This fact does not preclude Rambus being paid royalties for its intellectual property described in the “revoked” patent. You could have explained this in your article. Rather, you chose to leave a negative hanging without analysis. Again, your spin.
“Some analysts have noted that Rambus had a duty to announce its patents.” (Patents or patents pending?) Aren’t you getting dizzy? Some analysts have noted otherwise. In fact, forget the analysts and read what has been written from the bench. The CAFC killed this issue. The FTC killed it as well – although it wasn’t a pain-free death. Yes, the FTC has been petitioned for consideration before the full commission. Time will tell. Again, your spin.
Please, try, try again – because your efforts at objectivity and balance – didn’t succeed.
Treowth*
*A word which each one understands in his own way, according to his own needs, as it suits him. Mendele
Hat tip to BennetMI of the Pinehurst Thread for the link.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment