Re: Not so dead, *dead*, DEAD!

> >My point was that a major graphics chipset company is using their PHY,
> >which probably means that they do a good job. Obviously, both ATI and
> >NVidia have good engineers, yet one of them decided to work with
> >rambus...
>
> But there's no mention of either ATI or nVidia at that URL.

Yup, that's right.

> >> If I'm the only guy selling something
> >> I'd figure I have a right to charge whatever the market will bear; if the
> >> market is short of something, like e.g. refined petroleum, you pay more.
> >> Rambus' whinging on this issue is pathetic; one assumes they must
> >> fab-outsource for prototype parts - let them do similarly for production...
> >> or build a fab. They have been documented as behaving unethically in
> >> business
> >
> >Hardly worse than anyone else in the DRAM business...
>
> Your keyhole.<shrug>
>
> >> - people would rather not have done business with them... that's
> >> how it works. So Samsung copped a plea to end the angst... BFD... but
> >> another enemy for Rambus... the only "friend" they had in the memory
> >> business.
> >
> >> 50:4 is a poor ratio by any standards - at that level it reeks of a
> >> plundering exercise gone wrong.
> >
> >As I said before, that's a LAWYER issue, not a technology/patenting
> >issue.
>
> Rambus is the company which is heavy on lawyers.:-) It's technical in that
> the claims have been brushed aside in the specific case of memory
> applications, which they clearly targeted.

And? Your point about 50:4 (or any number of non-infringement
findings) is still just as irrelevant to whether the patents were
fraudulent in the first place.

> >> They should have been censured for wasting
> >> the court's time with frivolous claims - in many cases a court would have
> >> been correct in rejecting the whole 50, on principle.
> >
> >Uh?
>
> One assumes that the ~46 were not just rejected out of hand - somebody had
> to waste time deciding. If it was me who had to read & consider them, I'd
> be pissed.

If you wouldn't be willing to read them with an open mind, then it's a
good thing you aren't employed by the government (especially in any
fashion relating to the judicial system). Rambus has just as much a
right to justice as Micron, Samsung, etc. It all has to do with Rambus
getting their day in court, and exercising their right to due process.
To paraphrase one supreme court justice: "The US doesn't guarantee
freedom from stupid lawsuits, it does guarantee freedom from stupid
verdicts to stupid lawsuits."

IOW, you have to wait and see how things shake out.

> >> >You have provided no evidence that relates to 'bad patents', only
> >> >patent violations, which as I have said is distinct from a misbegotten
> >> >patent.
> >>
> >> Facts are facts. The courts are there to hopefully correct the
> >> inadequacies/incomptence of the patent system. If a court will not stand
> >> behind a claim the validity of the patent is certainly in doubt. D'oh, it
> >> cannot be enforced.
> >
> >Invalid patent --> no violations, yet somehow you think this goes the
> >other way? That makes no sense. How do you know the defendents didn't
> >just show noninfringement? I don't seem to recall the courts finding
> >the patents invalid...
>
> Look those claims were very specific to the memory industry - they just
> don't have any other circuitry targeted. It's possible that they failed
> due to conflicts with the defendant's patents but the fact is that the
> court has decided to not enforce them. When a patent cannot be enforced in
> the specific domain it addresses it's dead. No patent is a rubber stamp of
> approval - only something which has to be defended in the courts.

No, the court decided that whatever the defendent did was
non-infringing. When a patent cannot be enforced, it loses value;
however, that's fully orthogonal to a patent being declared invalid.
Invalidity usually means it shouldn't have been granted in the first
place, which is really quite different.

I have worked on a court case where one or more patents was declared
invalid, due to illegal behavior on the part of the company making the
patents. That opened said company up to some really really nasty
litigation, and they paid for it. From what I have seen and read about
Rambus, they were like children in a park compared to the case I worked
on.

David

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pinball Patents & Copyrights - Lets take this head on
    ... unless they are the opinions of the court. ... My opinion is that Dotty would fall flat in court. ... On the issue of cabinet remakes, ... There was the playfield slide and a number of other patents. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Not so dead, *dead*, DEAD!
    ... If you can't see how badly the eliminations reflect on Rambus' case here ... >>>the patents invalid... ... >> court has decided to not enforce them. ... that's fully orthogonal to a patent being declared invalid. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: OT Dish DVR
    ... built DVRs using Linux boxes? ... If it was indeed one of those broad software patents that cover ... they will prevail in court based on the harsh nature of the rulings. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Patents
    ... There are some layered patents out there. ... I know of one that's 7 layers ... if you go to court to get rid of the first layer all the rest remain. ... they pick on can afford the court costs and if they could then UP would ...
    (rec.models.railroad)
  • Re: why Microsoft really opposes Open Source
    ... > I would love to see it get to a court. ... The patents are clearly illegal ... doesn't need filesystem interoperability.) ... > FAT, FAT32, NTFS support from linux just to be rid of the hassle? ...
    (comp.programming)
Loading