An additional note under the second tier or option #2 previously posted was that by selecting the venue (ITC, CA or VA) RMBS could avoid giving their litigation opponent "home turf".
As part of the March '98 Board of Directors meeting, Mr. Karp also presented the "stealth mode" schedule. Frankly, this portion either standing alone or in context added weight to the argument RMBS - Mr. Karp, et al. - had seriously traversed the philosophical path of litigation "battle readiness." First the schedule, then my comments:
1. Don't contact any MM's until after RDRAM samples have been obtained.
2. Obtain CS or customer samples of MM parts that may be infringing non-compatible IP. This would be month "0".
3. Reverse engineer the sample parts. 1-2 months.
4. If infringing, write a letter to the MM and hold 1st meeting. 2-3 months.
5. 2nd meeting. 3-4 months.
6. Commence litigation.4-6 months.
Comments: At some point the shear weight of "battle readiness" by gravity alone would cross the line of being an anal bunch of engineers (respectfully I jest) analyzing every possible contingency to a becoming an inevitable course of action. Interestingly, Nissly's earlier efforts so show Judge Whyte that Mr. Karp was very experienced in IP negotiation / litigation may allow more weight to be added to the back of the "battle readiness" camel before it breaks. Rambus can argue that the experienced Mr. Karp was simply getting his ducks in a line. He testified that he enjoyed being on the selling end of a license - unlike being a buyer at Samsung. He was settling into his job to manage Rambus IP and in stereotypical engineer style, he was dotting his "i's" and crossing his "t's"
(I don't even fantisize suggesting anything to Mr. Stone. He looked well rested and on his game.
Sorry, I need to work. More later.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment