Home | Subscribe | Post a Job | Advertise | Contact
« Intramurals: The European Patent Divide |
| E.D. Texas Venue Case Goes En Banc; AIPLA Amicus Brief »
Rambus Wins Hynix Patent Case, Shares Rise 39 Percent
Posted on Mar 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM | Permalink
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well that's just great, now the next time I need some DRAM it'll cost me an extra 5$.
In other soon to be news, I could very well see Micron wiping the floor with this upstart. They better hope their 1B gets there, and quick.
Those tech meetings, tsk tsk, these guys should know better by now. When you go to one, you know everyone in the room has about 20 sub patents ready to sink your battleship.
Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Or, in the manufacturer/manufacturer alternative, nuke your country and start a holocaust.
Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43 PM
"Well that's just great, now the next time I need some DRAM it'll cost me an extra 5$."
Examiner#6K, is that you? (I hope not, on count of both comments.) Do you think invention is or should be free (as in beer)? Or are the Rambus patents not inventions in your (personal) view, despite the judgment? (Careful how you comment, as a PTO employee.)
Isn't it good that an American company would make money on an American invention, to balance the trade deficit?
[Micron will, of course, reap what it has sown, so true, true, there may be some wiping... but not soon enough. Tick, tock, tick, tock.... :-)]
P.S. You'll be paying the extra $5* if Micron gets its way too. The low DRAM prices (which Micron does not like, and which have caused Micron's $320M fiscal losses) have to do with Korean competition and market flooding, not with Rambus... why not let Rambus take care of that problem for us?
*or maybe $10 if they've lobby Congress, to offset expenses.
real anonymous |
Mar 27, 2008 at 06:48 AM
expoundlessthan6, first "43" ...
i really wish i could bring you to a standards meeting during a round of anti-trust and IP analytics ... your comments would be so , well international, in light of all the flak (amongst other costs) rambus has taken for NOT properly disclosing pending applications ...
duh-OH - 5 bucks from which side of the conflict the north or south? why not pay 20 more to Toshiba or even better 25 to huawei - then no one needs a 1B?
when there is no american IP left in the DRAM space or the IP is only a "minor" improvement (under Patent Reform Act) like increased speed, say (and that is measured in damages by what metric -- a percentage of the speed or?)? what exactly will you do at the patent office?
Mar 27, 2008 at 08:15 AM
Clearly the market was surprised by the verdict. Was it indeed surprising?
Mark Nowotarski |
Mar 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM
The market hates uncertainty even if the ruling was expected.
Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM
"…now the next time I need some DRAM it'll cost me an extra 5$."
Rambus's IP was stolen for almost a decade so you assume with hind sight that it was cheaper with out this "bothersome toll boothing…", the reality is that consumers for the most part were, and still are paying a fixed price (that is broken only when there is a large over capacity) of inferior technology.
"In other soon to be news, I could very well see Micron wiping the floor with this upstart."
Dream on, Micron's appeal goes to the CAFC, the same applet court that ruled in Rambus's favor in 03 and refused to accept an en bank rehearing in 04, not to mention an ultra cautious preceding by Judge Whyte that will probably render this Jury verdict virtually appeal proof. Micron is in a world of hurt (unless the corrupt patent "reform" passes, which will be a whole new ball game for Rambus…)
"Those tech meetings, tsk tsk, these guys should know better by now. When you go to one, you know everyone in the room has about 20 sub patents ready to sink your battleship."
Rambus and any other small IP company will not set foot in an SSO ever again, I don’t think.
Rob Sirota |
Mar 27, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Sometimes the bad guys win.
Lionel Hutz |
Mar 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM
You sure got that right. Many infringers get away with murder, like OJ.
Just an ordinary inventor(TM) |
Mar 27, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I think some people must be misinterpreting what exactly went on here. Let me lay it out for you.
1. Ram comes up with idea 1, files for a patent secretly.
2. Everyone else comes up with same idea more or less (less than a day/week later probably).
3. Ram and everyone meet up at a standards setting session to decide what the new standards should be for the industry. They don't tell everyone which patents they've filed for (that are still unpublished).
4. Ram and everyone come up with an agreeable standard. Ram took part in the decision in "good faithlol". Everyone is now "locked" by many forces (compatability etc) into making that standard.
5. Ram thinks to itself, hay, I filed for a patent I should totally lock those guys out of the standard we just helped to create! Ram adds claims to cover the new standard. <<<< the evil part.
6. Ram sues everyone.
7. Everyone is pissed.
8. Everyone pays $$$
9. Everyone (including the foreign people) charges more. (I pay an extra 5$ for a standard upgrade, yes I understand the concept behind market glut, but I doubt that will be that way forever, and the decision to make them all pay just came down).
10. Ram is a buthol so everyone takes it personal and ha tes them and does all the obvious research Ram's been doing faster than Ram can with their huge research teams (it's really not that hard to come up with this shizzle, no, really, it's not.
What's the underlying real underlying problem here? (besides Ram being a jackarse) The way the patent system currently works.
Frankly I'm surprised that the case was not only thrown out, but that Micron et al. didn't otherwise hit them back (which I'm sure they'll try and a less technical process standard setting ignorant judge will hear them about).
Mar 27, 2008 at 02:51 PM
10 should say:
10. Ram is a buthol so everyone takes it personal and ha tes them and does all the obvious research Ram's been doing faster than Ram can with their huge research teams (it's really not that hard to come up with this shizzle, no, really, it's not. <<<<< not saying I've read their exact patents so I can't comment on patentalolability) and cuts off future patenting opportunities of Rhom, and any hopes they may have of being a manufacturer (lol nuclear patent wars).
Notice how type pad cuts off anything else on the rest of the line if you use a single alligator <<<< instead of multiple alligators eating each other.
Mar 27, 2008 at 02:54 PM
"Rambus and any other small IP company will not set foot in an SSO ever again, I don’t think."
I don't understand why any of the major manufacturers would have allowed it in the first place. I mean come on, you'd have to be daft to do that. Allow only people that you can shut down just as quickly as they can shut you down ala nukes.
Mar 27, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Rambus and the Need for Reform of the FTC and Patent Laws
The latest turn of events in the (now over seven year old) Rambus saga is that the FTC has filed an en banc peitition that, in my view, demonstrates some of the very same "aggresive use of rather weak evidence" for which the DC Circuit just finished criticizing the FTC.
I have written recently about some of the facts and policy implications of this case, including a piece this week about the FTC's en banc petition. A draft of my most recent piece can be found on line, including here:
The FTC's Chief ALJ's intiial decision (reversed by a full Commission decision that was itself, in turn, reversed recently by the DC Circuit) is also very useful for background. It is here:
While I understand that passions sometimes run high concerning Rambus, I think the details of the Rambus case are worth significant study, particularly by a patent-savy audience like the readers of this blog.
former General Counsel, Rambus Inc.
John Danforth |
Jun 14, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Detailed analysis: Post hoc defense of one's own shady patent enforcement practices is unbecoming.
Do you agree John?
Jun 14, 2008 at 03:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Jason Rantanen, Associate ProfessorUniversity of IowaCollege of LawSSRN Articles
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics