Rambus Inc. slaps AAI, Inc.'s amicus curiae brief

Limited to 2,000 words, counsel for Rambus wasted nary a word on legal niceties. The Table of Contents of the brief:

I. AAI's "Open Standards" Submission Provides No Useful Guidance For The Commission And Is Factually Erroneous.
A. JEDEC did not value openness above all else.

B. AAI's suggestion that the Commission should try to restore competition to the "market for an open standard" is irrelevant and wrong even on its own terms.

II. AAI's Argument About Rambus's "Reward From Its Patents Is Analytically Flawed And Unrelated To The Issues In This Case.

A few lines from here and there:

The AAI does not address . . .

Instead, it articulates two abstract principles . . .

AAI makes no attempt . . . to square . . . with any legal authority or the record in this case.

AAI's "Open Standards" Submission Provides No Useful Guidance For the Commission And Is Factually Erroneous.

This argument fails for several reasons.

In fact the record shows . . .

. . . the record makes clear that JEDEC did not . . .

Indeed, it is undisputed . . . there is no evidence . . .

There is therefore no reason to believe . . .

In addition, the Commission should reject AAI's implication . . .not only because it is factually wrong, but because such a stance by JEDEC would have amounted to a group boycott in violation of the antitrust laws.

That is not a useful suggestion.

Nobody - not even the DRAM manufacturers who seek to curtail Rambus's patent rights - has suggested . . .

This argument is wrong as a matter of law and unworkable as a factual matter.

. . . the Commission has never adopted such a role.

AAI's argument sheds no light on that.

Moreover, AAI's offers no hint . . .

That is a significant understatement.

There is nothing in the record . . .

And AAI ignores the record evidence that the most relevant to its argument - evidence showing that Hyundai agreed to pay 2.5% royalty for use of Rambus's technologies in DRAM even before those technologies were incorporated into JEDEC standards.

AAI attempts to avoid the practical and factual difficulties . . .

AAI cites no authority to support this outlandish argument.

. . . AAI's brief addresses neither and thus fails to offer the Commission helpful guidance.

Hat tip to Gregory Stone & Company. I sleep like a baby knowing you are preparing the record for an appeal, thanks.