Rambus vann över Hynix i rättegång

Ursprungligen inskrivet av HMB
Hur många har belägg för att rambus har "snott" patenten? Fram med lite bevis nu och smutskasta inte bara rambus för något ni tror, personligen tycker jag det är bra att företag som "verkar" har utnyttjat patent åker dit. Det är det patent finns till för.

Ursprungligen inskrivet av banck
Svårt att förfalska på internet

Ursprungligen inskrivet av HMB
Hur många har belägg för att rambus har "snott" patenten? Fram med lite bevis nu och smutskasta inte bara rambus för något ni tror, personligen tycker jag det är bra att företag som "verkar" har utnyttjat patent åker dit. Det är det patent finns till för.

uly-Aug. 2001 Page(s):12 - 15, 69
Abstract:

As a follow-up to the May/June Micro Law column on abuse of the standard-setting process, I now turn to Rambus' version of the previously summarized Secret Squirrel saga. A jury in Richmond, Virginia, found that with the aid of a secret informant (designated Secret Squirrel) inside the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) standard-setting group, Rambus engaged in industrial-grade standardization skullduggery. The jury found that Rambus defrauded JEDEC and the dynamic RAM (DRAM) industry badly enough to warrant a verdict of $3.5 million in punitive damages. The jury also awarded Infineon $1 in compensatory damages. The court then reduced the $3.5 million punitive damages verdict to $350,000 because under Virginia law punitive damages cannot exceed that amount. Rambus has now filed papers explaining why it is not guilty of fraud and asking the court to overturn the verdict. Some of Rambus' arguments raise fundamental questions about the patent system's policies and the operative function of the law of fraud

In the early 1990s, when the standards for SDRAM chips were being discussed at JEDEC, Rambus was a member of the organization. The JEDEC committee working on standards for DRAM knew that one patent from the 1990 application had been issued. But Rambus did not disclose to the committee that it had additional divisional applications pending. Worse, unbeknownst to the other members of JEDEC, Rambus was crafting yet more applications (still retaining the 1990 priority date) in which it attempted to cover the features of the JEDEC SDRAM standard as that standard was being discussed at committee meetings attended by Rambus representatives.

Ultimately, however, the centralized appellate court for patent cases in the U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, decided that Rambus' behavior was acceptable. In effect, the appeals court did not dispute that Rambus tried to commit fraud, but ruled that they didn't succeed: Despite Rambus' best efforts to craft their patent claims around the elements of the standard, it was, in the court's judgment, possible to comply with the standard without infringing any of the Rambus patents. And the court ruled that, as a legal matter, there could be no fraud in this case because the JEDEC policy only required disclosure of patent applications on inventions necessary for the standard. Rambus was thus free to sue—and demand huge settlements from—rivals who took part in the JEDEC's standard setting process in good faith.

The Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust suit against Rambus on Wednesday, alleging that the controversial memory-chip designer deliberately deceived the industry by not disclosing its patent plans to a standards body.

The FTC, which voted 5-0 to file the lawsuit, alleges that Rambus violated antitrust laws by deliberately not disclosing key patent applications, among other acts, while it was a member of the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association (formerly known as the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council). JEDEC's bylaws required members to disclose or license relevant intellectual property to other members.

According to the suit, JEDEC adopted design specifications for SDRAM, the most common form of memory on the market, that overlapped on patents eventually awarded to Rambus. These patents then gave Rambus an unlawful opportunity to obtain royalty payments from Samsung and Toshiba, among others, worth $50 million to $100 million, and to engage in lawsuits, the FTC alleged.

Rambus also is engaged in lawsuits with Infineon, Micron Technology and Hynix over the same issue.

Infineon prevailed against Rambus in court, but parts of the case are on appeal. The Micron and Hynix suits have been stayed pending the outcome of the Infineon appeal.

"The conduct at issue here has done substantial harm to important technology markets and threatens to undermine participation in industry standard-setting activities more generally," Joseph J. Simons, director of the FTC Bureau of Competition, said in a statement.

"By issuing this complaint, the commission is sending a signal not only to Rambus but also to other companies," Simons continued. "The message is this: If you are going to take part in a standards process, be mindful to abide by the ground rules and to participate in good faith."

In the suit, the FTC seeks an order to prevent Rambus from asserting lawsuits based on the controversial patents and to terminate certain royalty payments, among other relief. The FTC has been investigating Rambus for more than a year.

Av Mats Lövgren

Rättegången mellan Rambus och Infineon, där Rambus stämt Infineon för patentintrång, har utvecklats till rena rama spionromanen. Dokument som Infineon presenterat för domstolen den 15 mars och som nu blivit offentliga, uppges visa hur två personer läckt hemlig information från JEDEC till Rambus. De ska ha hållit företaget informerat även sedan det lämnat standardorganisationen, uppger The Register.

Enligt dokumentet har spionerna, som går dunder kodnamnen Secret Squirrel och Deap Throat, försett Rambus med information om en teknik kallad dll, som diskuterades inom JEDEC och som lades till minnesspecifikationen 1997. Samma år ansökte Rambus om en utökning av ett av sina patent med just dll-tekniken, en utökning som först avslog sedan den setts som för generell.

Rambus advokater förnekar inte att man mottagit den här informationen men man säger sig inte veta var man fått den från.

Ursprungligen inskrivet av belga
Patetiskt, sorgligt och ett bakslag på alla sätt och vis...
Det här är väl finansvärldens version av "vi har ärligt stulit den och därför är den våran...".