Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Report on the Alberta Lawsuit available
by: infringeon2003 11/20/05 02:48 pm
Msg: 827280 of 827288
A report on the Alberta lawsuit and the '703 patent will be available tomorrow.
If you want or ned a copy of this report send email to
rblegal@sbcglobal.net
There is a small incentive fee for the report to compensate me for ruining my weekend. LOL
I have researched the Alberta "Grover" Patent lawsuit filed in Judge Paynes court and made claims charts from the patents.
This report also identifies the other patent infringement issues and the impact of the lawsuit of Rambus.
The '703 patent relates primarily to RDRAM circa early 1990.
COMMENT?...
Why TR Labs complaint fails
by: charred_water 11/20/05 01:30 pm
Msg: 827248 of 827250
There has never been an RDRAM technology that uses the clocking scheme described in either U.S. Patent 5,243,703 by Farmwald & Horowitz, or U.S. Patent 5,361,277 by Grove.
Simply put, real RDRAMs don’t work that way.
Thanks docrew0
Are you saying Grover's patent is prior art as to SDRAM or DDR-SDRAM?
I thought the application remains secret 'til the patent issues?
docrew0 - BRAVO. You have presented a multicourse meal of research for this hungry investor! Thanks!
Jeff, what do you make of this new case?
=>>>>>>> Cal, thanks in advance. smd
infringeon - round 2:
The Verdict on HPQ and Grover Patents
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:27 am
Msg: 826463 of 826741
The verdict on the HPQ patent has already been determined by the US Patent Office.
The Verdict on the Grover patent is that RAMBUS does not infringe. The Grover patent is much more complex than the RAMBUS patent.
Grover is a "closed loop" control timing control system while Rambus is an "open loop" timing control system.
Grover was intended to be used in telecommunication applications where the clock signal is a radio wave or someother part of the electromagnetic spectrum not an electricla signal on a copper trace. Grover would be useful for synchronizing groundsation to satellites. RAMBUS would be useless for that purpose.
-----------------------------
Is that why Grover was not cited as prior art?
-----------------------------
Re: The Verdict on HPQ and Grover Patent
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:51 am
Msg: 826497 of 826741
Probably!
Also the '703 patent issued before the Grover patent which was tied up in intereference proceddings with the Hewlett Packard patent.
The Grover patentwas addressing mainly the "telecommunications" arena not the memory system design area. So they were in different patent categories.
-----------------------------------
If one diagrammed the two leaving off the feedback loop and not mentioning the physical tuning of the traces, the diagrams might appear very similar? Will Payne understand this?
-----------------------------------
Re: The Verdict on HPQ and Grover Patent
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:44 am
Msg: 826490 of 826741
I don't think that Payne is into the "understanding" thing.
The clock circuit diagram for Rambus does not show that it attaches back to the source of the master clock. It is an "Open Loop" control system.
The Grover Patent digram shows that the return clock signal attaches back to the source of the master clock.
This is a HUGE DIFFERENCE from an engineering and manufacturing point of view!
Re: The Verdict on HPQ and Grover Patent
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:46 am
Msg: 826492 of 826741
The Rambus "open loop" control system design
leads to the use of "latency registers" on the memory components attached to the RAMBUS bus.
now infringeon:
RAMBUS does not infringe Grover Patent
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:13 am
Msg: 826425 of 826740
The problem with the Grover patent is that its first claim does not read on the RAMBUS patents.
The RAMBUS does not require that the device generating the master clock signal also receive "a return reference signal from said second site to said first site upon arrival of said outgoing reference signal at said second site;"
Hence, the first claim does not read on RAMBUS clock apparatus which operates "open loop".
RAMBUS is using the trace lengths to determine realtive phase while Grover is using clock signals received at the transmiting site.
The Grover patent requires that the following:
A clock distribution apparatus for use in providing a common absolute time reference to spatially distributed application modules requiring synchronized clocks, said apparatus comprising:
means for transmitting an outgoing reference signal from a first site to a second site and a return reference signal from said second site to said first site upon arrival of said outgoing reference signal at said second site; and
means at each said application module for detecting an outgoing reference signal and a corresponding return reference signal and producing a local phase reference signal approximately midway through the time interval required for said outgoing reference signal to travel from a signal detecting site at said application module to said second site and said return reference signal to travel from said second site to said signal detecting site.
Re: RAMBUS does not infringe Grover Pate
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:18 am
Msg: 826436 of 826740
Samsung must be really desperate to provide a "prior art" patent that does not even read on RAMBUS clock patents.
It is obvious when the first and the main claim does not read on Rambus that RAMBUS does not infringe Grover. What are these guys smoking!
In fact, the RAMBUS patent is an improvement over Grover in that it does not require reception circuitry at the site of the master clock transmission. It is simpler and chearper and therefore patentable over Grover.
The Verdict on HPQ and Grover Patents
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:27 am
Msg: 826463 of 826740
The verdict on the HPQ patent has already been determined by the US Patent Office.
The Verdict on the Grover patent is that RAMBUS does not infringe. The Grover patent is much more complex than the RAMBUS patent.
Grover is a "closed loop" control timing control system while Rambus is an "open loop" timing control system.
Grover was intended to be used in telecommunication applications where the clock signal is a radio wave or someother part of the electromagnetic spectrum not an electricla signal on a copper trace. Grover would be useful for synchronizing groundsation to satellites. RAMBUS would be useless for that purpose.
----------------------------------
Thanks Infringeon2003! I take it you are distinguishing between an "open-loop" and a "closed-loop" system (with feedback) and that would be a major demonstrable difference?
----------------------------------
Re: RAMBUS does not infringe Grover Pate
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:34 am
Msg: 826473 of 826740
In the case of a memory system it is a huge difference. RAMBUS requires no clock reception circuitry or phase determination circuitry at the transmiting site of its master clock.
Memory components are fixed on a printed circuit board at manufacturing time.
RAMBUS has a clearly superior solution for the design of memory boards and systems over what one would have to do to implement Grover in a memory system or board.
The telecommunictation application must be able to handle communications between a groundstation and application nodes which are
in motion around the earth on on the earth surface.
and a 2nd non-infringeon post:
Prior Art included in PTO application
by: bundorn 11/18/05 08:59 am
Msg: 826326 of 826739
Number: of 118146
Subject: Re: Patent Analysis of Micron v. Rambus Date: 2/23/01 11:10 PM
Hi Jacqi,
Yup, goes all the way back in one small step to 4/18/90.
Did some digging on the Wiggers (HP -#4998262) and Grover (Alberta Telecom - #5361277) patents with respect to the M-CAM article. Using M-CAM's patent continuation chain on page 8, I looked up Rambus' 5243703 (first patent on clocking), 5434817, 5511024, 5430676 and 5319755 patents. These are the first generation offshoots from the '703 patent. None of these including the '703 patent disclose the Wiggers or Grover patents. (BTW, the 5360308 patent shown on M-CAM's chart as a first generation offshoot from the '703 patent is for a vibrating gate on a dump truck--LMAO. Great add for their software.)
Then I went to the next generation of patents, 6070222,6034918,6032214 and guess what? These patents supply the Grover patent as a reference (and guess what--the Grover patent references the Wiggers patent).
And guess what, Mikey likes it, because these patents issued.
So at least to some extent this issue was before the USPTO and patents issued with full knowledge of the other patents.
All the best,
Rusty <<<
>>> Comments from YAHOO on this same article:
by: c_sharan 10/16/00 7:46 pm
Msg: 173505 of 173520
first a non-infringeon poster:
Re: Alberta Telecommunications
by: intruderviking 11/18/05 07:55 am
Msg: 826292 of 826739
This "prior-art" patent was identified years ago, per the link just provided regarding the Micron vs. Rambus case (dated 2001). Rambus has been aware of this and the HP patent, so their litigation strategies have to include dealing with this issue.
These issues would have normally come up in the infringement cases and be dealt with(which we have not gotten to yet...) there.
The only issue here is that instead of just using this info to try and defend themselves in an infrigement trial (which is what should be done), they are trying to start a new case in front of Payne who has shown a penchant for doing novel things with Patent Law.
To me, it indicates that Samsung does not think this prior art claim is very strong. They don't trust going in front of an unbiased and well-versed patent judge as part of an infringement trial. This is a hail mary to Payne to try and get a ruling on this "prior art" from Payne, that can then become the precedent for use in other trials.
There are some definite weaknesses in this filing. The venue is wrong (should be in either Delaware or California). This is not a direct outgrowth of the VA1 trial, although they are trying to morph it into that.
We'll see what Payne can do with it, but I think Rambus will have the law on their side and can hopefully again outmaneuver Payne. I'm maintaining through this as well. Really only new news is that they are trying to have Payne hear it instead of Whyte. If Whyte rules in the Hynix case (who will use this in their infringement defense during phase 2) for Rambus, thus dismissing this prior art, the issue will be resolved. No matter how hard Payne tries, he can't speed this new trial up too fast. Discovery, scheduling hearings and a trial will have to be held since the issues are very different. IF Payne somehow short circuits it due to "spoilation," which I don't necessarily put past him, he will be overturned on appeal, IMO.
Like others have said, this is just a realization by the infringers they will be proceeding to an actual infringement phase of this whole affair. They are trying to go out of their way to again get this in front of Payne vice Whyte. Tells you something about the strength of this prior art. They would have no fear of Whyte if they thought it was strong enough to stand up in an unbiased court.
IntruderViking
Long since 1999, Lurking since 2001
-------------
Re: Alberta Telecommunications
by: intruderviking 11/18/05 08:06 am
Msg: 826295 of 826739
Other note.
This could mess up chances of a settlement prior to the infringement phase of the trial, after an assumed positive ruling regarding spoilation.
Since Alberta is not an infringer, they most likely would not be part of any DRAM settlement between the MM and Rambus (or at least Rambus would have to separately settle with them at the same time to ensure the other settlements were rock solid).
Samsung is almost now forcing Rambus to go to trial against Hynix to ensure this prior art is heard before Whyte and not Payne. They would still come after Hynix, and could give up after Hynix is heavily damaged, or they can win the issue. Samsung is setting up Hynix as well as Rambus here.
If Rambus settles with everyone before infringement trial, Alberta could still pursue this case (since they are not a MM). The liklihood of it being heard by Payne is much higher if there is not an outstanding case vs. the MM in California or Delaware.
IntruderViking
Cal, this morning infringeon has some analysis posts on yahoo.
Have you seen 'em?
Would you review 'em if I posted 'em here?
tia
smd
old rule was 17 yrs from issuance date
newer patents extend 20 yrs from filing date of applic
Doubt IFX could have made known to rambus, to any useful degree of certainty, that the present ifx plan would occur.
jmho
smd
threejack and others here, do you post on TMF?
very cool!
thanks
I just don't see the MFN passing in any deal involving a major mm as a buyer. In effect that enlarges the scope of the MFN, and given the on-going litigation and existing deals with mm, I don't see RMBS taking MFN aaplicable to a 15% player and making it apply to a 30% player w/ whom RMBS has an existing high rate deal or ongoing litigation.
Perhaps there's a way it passes w/o enlarging its scope.
JMHO
smd
In a nutshell:
The licenses have value to the licensee, IFX, based on the ability to sell product without paying based on the volume of product produced. (That's the benefit; the burden is the payment obligation.)
The licenses also have value to the licensor, RMBS, based on the payments to be received. (That's the benefit; the burden is the foregone opportunity to get paid based on the volume of product produced by IFX.)
In a deal like this, RMBS wants protection, and they don't want the licenses they have granted to GAIN value (to IFX or a successor) due simply to the fortuity of the sale transaction occurring.
IFX wants to be sure that they or the successor entity realizes the full value of the licenses based on the original agreement. IFX doesn't want the licenses to LOSE value due simply to the fortuity of the sale transaction occurring.
From there it's all details, with nuances due to the relative bargaining positions when they negotiated in March.
I think the issue for tomorrow, and the cause for speculation, is as follows:
=> You can expect Rambus to make their investment case at the analyst mtg of 2 hours tomorrow, plus Harold Hughes is on CNBC, presumably for the same purpose.
=> Tomorrow is Hughes' first CNBC appearance since becoming CEO; his former Intel colleagues will be listening b/c it is him (and not Tate), especially given . . .
=> NOV 2: Harold Hughes quote: "I have already assumed that the Intel contract is not renewed," Hughes at said at the Reuters Semiconductors Summit in San Francisco, "It doesn't bother me. We have more biz than we can manage right now." [MOST THOUGHT THIS WAS POSTURING W/ INTEL].
=> Recent Harold Hughes comment about multi-facet project for large (unnamed) customer
=> Although there was a B.Riley New York Investor Conference on Aug 11, 2005, tomorrow is the first "Rambus Analyst Day" since Nov 17, 2004, meaning it is the first since Hughes became CEO.
=> Presumably settlement discussions are either "planned" or "in progress." If they are "in progress" that is conceivably something he might mention tomorrow. (I admit VERY UNLIKELY)
I missed (failed to grasp) the connection btwn my Q and Cal's answer.
Help?
Cal when will we know if XBOX uses Rambus IP?
tia
smd
huh?
===========
But, apparently not much for brains.
the writ request would be as follows:
Request the CAFC direct the EDVA to dismiss with prejudice the proceedings pending in Sammy v Rambus, including the adjudication proceeding contemplated by Civil Order of 11/08/05 (etc, http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2005-11-8%20Civil%20Order.pdf) on the following grounds:
=> history
=> Sammy has refused Rambus's offer of fees
=> 35 USC 285 only allows a proceeding to adjudicate atty fees under the statute where a prevailing party establishes exceptional case
=> Sammy was not a prevailing party
=> Rambus was not a prevailing party
=> Nothing left for the EDVA to decide.
in case you missed this beauty from Infringeon aka JMKel:
"Those of you who wish to have an analysis of why Hynix lost the Evidentiary Hearing can get my report. (Bashers need not apply :))
[EDITED OUT]
Remember, this is only my opinion based on my observations and discussions and I am not a lawyer. (So be responsible for your own investment decisions do not investment more than you can afford to lose.)"
/
/
/
/
/
/
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=4687909&tid=rmbs&sid=4687909&mi....
/////////// NOTE:
The information made available to you by the INFRINGEON REPORT is provided for informational purposes and solely as a personal reference tool. The INFRINGEON REPORT does not, cannot, and will not provide investment, tax or legal advice for any particular person or business. Do not act or rely upon any of the resources and information provided by the INFRINGEON REPORT without seeking professional investment, tax and/or legal advice related to your particular circumstance. If you seek legal advice, consult a real lawyer! Consult your attorney before acting upon any legal matter addressed in the INFRINGEON REPORT! While we believe the information in the INFRINGEON REPORT is well-founded and useful, no warranty is made with respect to any information provided.
I'm hoping RMBS files a writ request re: Payne's 11/8/05 decisions.
He is making Rambus litigate an atty fee issue that was mooted by Rambus' offer to Sammy.
Even if declined, the writ request would stall Payne until Hynix either settles, based on a decision by Whyte, or the Hynix infringement phase is underway.
JMHO
smd
CORRECTED . . . interesting, a judge with big cahones (SEE THE UNBELIEVABLE LIST OF ANTITRUST CASES AT BOTTOM):
The Honorable Richard A. Kramer was born in Brookline, Massachusetts on July 22, 1947 and graduated from the University of Southern California Law School in 1972 as a Doctor of Jurisprudence, following a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude degree in political science in 1969. He was appointed to the San Fransisco superior court by governor Pete Wilson in 1996. Prior to this appointment, he was a civil litigator representing the banking industry. Kramer has been recognized for his ability to handle many complex cases, leading to California's Judicial Council to appoint him as the same-sex "Marriage Cases" coordinator.
Kramer made headlines in March 2005 when he struck down Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman on the grounds that it denies the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." In his decision, he pointed out the "obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married” and that "California's enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the State would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage," concluding that "there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well."
According to a San Francisco Chronicle news article, "A crucial point of the ruling was the judge's conclusion that the marriage law amounts to sex discrimination, a finding that is enough to overturn virtually any California law under the state's strict constitutional standard. The law makes "the gender of the intended spouse ... the sole determining factor" of the legality of a marriage, Kramer said; he said claims by the law's defenders that the law treats men and women equally were no more valid than earlier claims that anti-interracial marriage laws treated whites and blacks equally."
The decision will have no immediate effect during the appeals process. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the status quo of domestic partnership rights, but has said that he will abide by the state Supreme Court's decision and not push any constitutional amendment to override the courts.
Kramer, in the words of a National Review editorial <SEE BELOW>, "finds the law's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman not just wrong or outdated but irrational... He has never heard of a possible reason to regard marriage as a male-female union. That view of marriage... cannot survive even the lowest level of scrutiny a judge can bring to bear on a statute." National Review argued, "This kind of pseudo-rationalism would undermine any marriage law at all" because not all marriages fulfill the roles for which they were designed. The magazine considers the decision to be anti-democratic judicial activism. "There is no plausible argument that any provision of the state constitution was originally understood to require same-sex marriage," argues the editorial.
Andrew Sullivan concedes that the decision was judicial activism, with which he is somewhat uncomfortable. Nevertheless, he applauded the decision in his blog, noting:
"when state constitutions insist upon it, you have to have a much stronger argument to keep a minority disenfranchised than the current anti-marriage forces have been able to marshall. Tradition? So was the ban on inter-racial marriage. Procreation? Non-procreative straight couples can get civil licenses. The potential collapse of civilization? Impossible to prove or even argue convincingly. Once you have accepted that there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, the arguments against same-sex marriage collapse. And since the only coherent moral difference is the likelihood of non-procreative sex, and that is now the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage, there is no moral case against allowing gay couples to have civil marriage. The rest is fear and prejudice and religious conviction. None should have a place as a legal argument in the courts."
Sullivan also noted: "Kramer is not a radical. He's a Catholic Republican appointed by a former Republican governor."
Finally, Sullivan counters the argument that the decision undermines all marriage law thus:
"No one is using any of these actual, not-always-present aspects of civil marriage to deny anyone's right to marry. No one, so far as I know, is saying that we should bar couples from civil marriages because they are not in love or not cohabiting or any other criterion. But they are saying that couples [that] do not or cannot procreate should be barred from marriage - on those grounds alone. All Kramer is saying is that current marriage laws have no such exception, and that using that exception to exclude one group of non-procreative couples (the gay ones) rather than another non-procreative group (the straight ones) makes no logical sense. Especially when many lesbian (and some gay ones) marriages have biological children, and some straight ones have adopted kids."
EDITORIAL:
=============================
March 16, 2005, 7:48 a.m.
Ruling by Ruling
California superior-court judge Richard Kramer has managed to be even breezier than the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in striking down traditional marriage laws. Like the jurists on the other coast, he finds the law’s definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman not just wrong or outdated but irrational. He does not hold (as they did not hold) that the reasons for holding the view of marriage that everyone has held for millennia are defeated by other, better reasons; he holds (as they held) that there are no good reasons in the first place. He has never heard of a possible reason to regard marriage as a male-female union. That view of marriage, Kramer holds, again in keeping with the Massachusetts ruling, cannot survive even the lowest level of scrutiny a judge can bring to bear on a statute.
But in one respect, Kramer goes a step beyond Massachusetts. The Massachusetts court considered the claim that marriage might be defined as the union of a man and a woman because marriage has something to do with procreation. It then ruled that since the culture, various pieces of legislation, and previous judicial decisions had weakened the links among marriage, sex, and the raising of children, marriage therefore had nothing to do with procreation and any features of the marriage law premised on a contrary belief had to go. The reasoning was specious: From the premise that the law and the culture contain inconsistent views of marriage, it does not follow that the court should resolve the inconsistency by throwing out those elements it dislikes.
Kramer, however, did not even perform this perfunctory analysis. He merely 1) finds that the California courts have not recognized procreation as a purpose of the marriage laws, 2) observes in passing the “obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married,” and 3) finds that procreation is — therefore! — not a legitimate state purpose. One would think that even a proponent of same-sex marriage would want to do better than that. Under any set of marriage laws, the fit between the laws’ purpose and the eligibility criteria they establish will be somewhat loose. Are the laws there to promote loving relationships? Well, the law doesn’t require that the partners in a marriage love each other. Do they promote the formation of stable households where the partners look out for each other? Well, not every married couple lives together, and it is an “obvious social reality” that not every cohabiting couple is married. This kind of pseudo-rationalism would undermine any marriage law at all.
“The public has not given
its consent to same-sex
marriage.”
Kramer’s ruling is undemocratic, as was the Massachusetts ruling. We mean this not only in the obvious sense that the voters of California reaffirmed their commitment to keeping the marriage laws as is in a referendum in 2000, and Kramer overrode their judgment. That would not be a decisive objection if it really were the case that the ruling flowed from a constitutional provision that the people of California had ratified. But the public has not given its consent to same-sex marriage in this deeper sense either. There is no plausible argument that any provision of the state constitution was originally understood to require same-sex marriage (or to enact a principle from which same-sex marriage could be directly derived). Nor has anyone even tried to argue as much. The best that can be said is that, if Kramer’s ruling stands, there is a good chance that Californians will not overturn it by amending the state constitution. (Governor Schwarzenegger has already said he will take the state’s judges’ word as final.) That is the most democratic legitimacy that can be expected in Massachusetts, too — and it is a far cry from the consent of the governed.
In California, as in Massachusetts, as in Hawaii and Vermont before them, what has been going on is not the evolution of the law to keep pace with changing views of marriage. What has occurred is a series of attempted judicial coups. The courts are putting in place the premises to strike down traditional marriage laws in state after state until the federal courts administer the coup de grâce. The only way to stop it is through a federal constitutional amendment.
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200503160748.asp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.msgsettlement.com/not.pdf
http://www.premarinclassaction.com/premarin/docs/Premarin%20Notice.pdf.
http://sorbatesettlement.com/not.html
http://www.flatglasssettlement.com/FLG_NOTWeb_011303.pdf
VISA / MASTERCARD CASE http://www.17200blog.com/CLIOrder.pdf
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/20021000_Associates_Sett_1-15.pdf
Toyota Motor Credit
The lawsuit against Toyota is before Judge Richard A. Kramer of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco. In September, 2004, Judge Kramer denied Toyota's motion to stay proceedings. The case is proceeding.
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/auto-loan-discrimination.htm
Parties Seek Judgment In California Broker Commission Litigation
SAN FRANCISCO — A state judge is set to consider motions for summary judgment in June in a case alleging that insurance companies paid kickbacks to independent brokers in exchange for steering consumers to buy their auto and homeowners policies (In re Insurance Broker Commission Litigation, No. 323192, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
JUPITERMEDIA CORPORATION: Blocks Gambling-Related Ads on Search
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jupitermedia Corporation blocked all gambling-related
advertisements from being published on its Web properties from
third-party search engines, as a result of a class action filed
in the Superior Court for the State of California, San Francisco
County.
On August 3, 2004, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed the
suit on behalf of themselves and all others situated and/or the
general public against the Company and twelve co-defendant
companies that operate Internet search engines. Cisneros et al.
allege that defendants posting of paid advertising providing
links to Internet gambling Web sites constitutes unfair
competition and unlawful business acts and practices under
California law. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits and restitution.
On September 3, 2004, the Company blocked all advertisements
from being published on its Web properties from third-party
search engines for the gambling-related terms specified in the
Complaint. Moreover, the Company asserted in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission that it does not accept
advertisements for gambling-related Web sites directly from
companies that operate them. The Company has demanded
contractual indemnity from two companies that supplied
advertisements that are the subject matter of the lawsuit.
Neither of these two companies, however, has stated a final
position as whether it will provide indemnity.
The suit is styled "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al,
case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
interesting, a judge with big cahones (SEE ANTITRUST CASES AT BOTTOM):
The Honorable Richard A. Kramer was born in Brookline, Massachusetts on July 22, 1947 and graduated from the University of Southern California Law School in 1972 as a Doctor of Jurisprudence, following a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude degree in political science in 1969. He was appointed to the San Fransisco superior court by governor Pete Wilson in 1996. Prior to this appointment, he was a civil litigator representing the banking industry. Kramer has been recognized for his ability to handle many complex cases, leading to California's Judicial Council to appoint him as the same-sex "Marriage Cases" coordinator.
Kramer made headlines in March 2005 when he struck down Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman on the grounds that it denies the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." In his decision, he pointed out the "obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married” and that "California's enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the State would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage," concluding that "there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well."
According to a San Francisco Chronicle news article, "A crucial point of the ruling was the judge's conclusion that the marriage law amounts to sex discrimination, a finding that is enough to overturn virtually any California law under the state's strict constitutional standard. The law makes "the gender of the intended spouse ... the sole determining factor" of the legality of a marriage, Kramer said; he said claims by the law's defenders that the law treats men and women equally were no more valid than earlier claims that anti-interracial marriage laws treated whites and blacks equally."
The decision will have no immediate effect during the appeals process. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the status quo of domestic partnership rights, but has said that he will abide by the state Supreme Court's decision and not push any constitutional amendment to override the courts.
Kramer, in the words of a National Review editorial <SEE BELOW>, "finds the law's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman not just wrong or outdated but irrational... He has never heard of a possible reason to regard marriage as a male-female union. That view of marriage... cannot survive even the lowest level of scrutiny a judge can bring to bear on a statute." National Review argued, "This kind of pseudo-rationalism would undermine any marriage law at all" because not all marriages fulfill the roles for which they were designed. The magazine considers the decision to be anti-democratic judicial activism. "There is no plausible argument that any provision of the state constitution was originally understood to require same-sex marriage," argues the editorial.
Andrew Sullivan concedes that the decision was judicial activism, with which he is somewhat uncomfortable. Nevertheless, he applauded the decision in his blog, noting:
"when state constitutions insist upon it, you have to have a much stronger argument to keep a minority disenfranchised than the current anti-marriage forces have been able to marshall. Tradition? So was the ban on inter-racial marriage. Procreation? Non-procreative straight couples can get civil licenses. The potential collapse of civilization? Impossible to prove or even argue convincingly. Once you have accepted that there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, the arguments against same-sex marriage collapse. And since the only coherent moral difference is the likelihood of non-procreative sex, and that is now the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage, there is no moral case against allowing gay couples to have civil marriage. The rest is fear and prejudice and religious conviction. None should have a place as a legal argument in the courts."
Sullivan also noted: "Kramer is not a radical. He's a Catholic Republican appointed by a former Republican governor."
Finally, Sullivan counters the argument that the decision undermines all marriage law thus:
"No one is using any of these actual, not-always-present aspects of civil marriage to deny anyone's right to marry. No one, so far as I know, is saying that we should bar couples from civil marriages because they are not in love or not cohabiting or any other criterion. But they are saying that couples [that] do not or cannot procreate should be barred from marriage - on those grounds alone. All Kramer is saying is that current marriage laws have no such exception, and that using that exception to exclude one group of non-procreative couples (the gay ones) rather than another non-procreative group (the straight ones) makes no logical sense. Especially when many lesbian (and some gay ones) marriages have biological children, and some straight ones have adopted kids."
EDITORIAL:
=============================
March 16, 2005, 7:48 a.m.
Ruling by Ruling
California superior-court judge Richard Kramer has managed to be even breezier than the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in striking down traditional marriage laws. Like the jurists on the other coast, he finds the law’s definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman not just wrong or outdated but irrational. He does not hold (as they did not hold) that the reasons for holding the view of marriage that everyone has held for millennia are defeated by other, better reasons; he holds (as they held) that there are no good reasons in the first place. He has never heard of a possible reason to regard marriage as a male-female union. That view of marriage, Kramer holds, again in keeping with the Massachusetts ruling, cannot survive even the lowest level of scrutiny a judge can bring to bear on a statute.
But in one respect, Kramer goes a step beyond Massachusetts. The Massachusetts court considered the claim that marriage might be defined as the union of a man and a woman because marriage has something to do with procreation. It then ruled that since the culture, various pieces of legislation, and previous judicial decisions had weakened the links among marriage, sex, and the raising of children, marriage therefore had nothing to do with procreation and any features of the marriage law premised on a contrary belief had to go. The reasoning was specious: From the premise that the law and the culture contain inconsistent views of marriage, it does not follow that the court should resolve the inconsistency by throwing out those elements it dislikes.
Kramer, however, did not even perform this perfunctory analysis. He merely 1) finds that the California courts have not recognized procreation as a purpose of the marriage laws, 2) observes in passing the “obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married,” and 3) finds that procreation is — therefore! — not a legitimate state purpose. One would think that even a proponent of same-sex marriage would want to do better than that. Under any set of marriage laws, the fit between the laws’ purpose and the eligibility criteria they establish will be somewhat loose. Are the laws there to promote loving relationships? Well, the law doesn’t require that the partners in a marriage love each other. Do they promote the formation of stable households where the partners look out for each other? Well, not every married couple lives together, and it is an “obvious social reality” that not every cohabiting couple is married. This kind of pseudo-rationalism would undermine any marriage law at all.
“The public has not given
its consent to same-sex
marriage.”
Kramer’s ruling is undemocratic, as was the Massachusetts ruling. We mean this not only in the obvious sense that the voters of California reaffirmed their commitment to keeping the marriage laws as is in a referendum in 2000, and Kramer overrode their judgment. That would not be a decisive objection if it really were the case that the ruling flowed from a constitutional provision that the people of California had ratified. But the public has not given its consent to same-sex marriage in this deeper sense either. There is no plausible argument that any provision of the state constitution was originally understood to require same-sex marriage (or to enact a principle from which same-sex marriage could be directly derived). Nor has anyone even tried to argue as much. The best that can be said is that, if Kramer’s ruling stands, there is a good chance that Californians will not overturn it by amending the state constitution. (Governor Schwarzenegger has already said he will take the state’s judges’ word as final.) That is the most democratic legitimacy that can be expected in Massachusetts, too — and it is a far cry from the consent of the governed.
In California, as in Massachusetts, as in Hawaii and Vermont before them, what has been going on is not the evolution of the law to keep pace with changing views of marriage. What has occurred is a series of attempted judicial coups. The courts are putting in place the premises to strike down traditional marriage laws in state after state until the federal courts administer the coup de grâce. The only way to stop it is through a federal constitutional amendment.
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200503160748.asp
doc is there a trial date set for the AT trial ??
tia
smd
Jeff I sold half when I saw Payne's "civil order" but I will buy calls next week.
Will, Rambus will have to file a regular appeal of Payne's decision. {That's not a bad thing} His decision will be a final order. But it flows in the pile labeled "slow boat."
Hynix will ask Whyte to allow an interlocutory appleal of his unclean hands decision once Payne's decision is issued. That is why Rambus must stall off Payne until the NDCA infringement case is underway.
(Obviously a settlement w/ Hynix makes my comment pointless - - but put yourself in Hynix's shoes; Whyte is telling you to settle but you see a long delay <based on Payne> if you hold off. Don't you think that will figure intop Hynix's calculus of "how willing ($$$-wise) should we be to settle")
Sorry to be pessimistic, but I calls it like I sees it.
Infring has lost it, if he ever had it.
He is singlemindedly cheerleading this situation, and refuses to credit anyone else with having applied thought to it.
I still hold the bus, but about half of what I did after Whyte's ruling timetable was made known.
Here's the post from yahoo I mentioned:
==============
Effect of Payne's Ruling
by: knowledgable_observer 11/10/05 11:19 am
Msg: 822712 of 822726
>>>
acknowledges that the declaratory judgement suit has been mooted and avoids collateral estoppel as to the validity and enforcability ot the patents.
He is keeping jurisdiction as to atty fees but is using the exceptional case determination in order to enter into record evidence that would of appeared in the unclean hands arguments of a judgement hearing.
He can't order the patents unenforceable due to unclean hands, that has been mooted, but he can award atty fees and say the reason for the fees are due to bad faith litigation and unclean hands.
And HE IS GOING TO DO THIS...
But it won't carry much weight with NO DISCOVERY and only using the IFX case...
<<<
But take this to the next logical step.
Payne now enters the 300 page judgement against Rambus that he had all prepared for IFX, complete with all of the one-sided accusations and innuendo - perjury, scheming, ... The whole Desmaris line.
The FTC picks this up and enters it into their record. Now they're off and running for another couple of years. Hynix takes it to Whyte to cause trouble. Micron goes to Delaware and gets their trial delayed until everything gets sorted out.
Micron stirs the pot with some other stooge like Holiday Matinee and gets the shareholder lawsuits started again.
No more new license deals will get signed/renewed. Existing licensees will balk at paying while everyone else gets off scott-free. Rambus can kiss IFX's $100M goodbye.
Whether or not Payne's actions have any legal basis is irrelevant. He is going to throw a monkey wrench into the works and dig Rambus a hole that they are going to need a couple of years to climb out of, just to get back to where they are today.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 822702 by sdhawgman
will
Re: sdhawgman ???????????
by: smd1234 11/10/05 10:50 am
Msg: 822696 of 822756
Whyte's enforcability decision will stand as far as the NDCA is concerned - I agree
My concern is the need to have CAFC resolve the discrepancy btwn what Whyte decides and what Payne decides, and the delay resulting from that.
Do you agree?
========
He still gets his trial but it has NO EFFECT on the enforceability of the Patents in the Hynix case.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 822636 by sdhawgman
See the post I copied from yahoo onto TMF from "knowledgable observer"
see the post I just made
Re: sdhawgman ???????????
by: smd1234 11/10/05 10:50 am
Msg: 822696 of 822697
Whyte's enforcability decision will stand as far as the NDCA is concerned - I agree
My concern is the need to have CAFC resolve the discrepancy btwn what Whyte decides and what Payne decides, and the delay resulting from that.
Do you agree?
========
He still gets his trial but it has NO EFFECT on the enforceability of the Patents in the Hynix case.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 822636 by sdhawgman
Thanks for the detailed response.
page 30 -> end
of the main Opinion is pure fantasy, but we have to go thru the BS now so he can get his findings on record and part of an order.
What I am concerned about is (1) emboldening all but Hynix, and perhaps even Hynix, and (2) mucking up a clear, strong effect for Whyte's upcoming decision.
regards,
smd
THE GRAMMAR OF PAYNE IS A HURDLE
SORRY about the caps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING HERE:
_________________COMPLETE VERSION:
............... No. 1 ................
[I HAVE CONSIDERED](4) that Samsung asserts that this action qualifies an exceptional case because Rambus prosecuted herein claims that the patents-in-suit are infringed by Samsung, notwithstanding that, in March 2005, the Court found that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rambus was guilty liable for, unclean hands that barred its access to the Court, and that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rambus had committed spoliation of evidence warranting the severe sanction of dismissal;
<<<READ HERE WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT SAMMY'S CONTENTION>>>
_________________RE-WRITTEN VERSION:
[I HAVE CONSIDERED] what Samsung told me in their filing;
they asserted
Rambus has gone ahead and ignored the FINDINGS that I made in IFX and has pursued this case here in VA with claims that the patents-in-suit are infringed by Samsung,
Rambus has gone ahead and done this, notwithstanding that, in March 2005, I found that clear and convincing evidence had established that Rambus was guilty of liable for, unclean hands that barred its access to the Court,
that Rambus has gone ahead and done this, notwithstanding that, in March 2005, I found that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rambus had committed spoliation of evidence warranting the severe sanction of dismissal;
this action qualifies an exceptional case because Rambus has done those things
DOC, THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS.
TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE - I HAVE RE-ORDERED FROM MY EARLIER POST:
............... No. 1 ................
[I HAVE CONSIDERED](4) that Samsung asserts that this action qualifies an exceptional case because Rambus prosecuted herein claims that the patents-in-suit are infringed by Samsung, notwithstanding that, in March 2005, the Court found that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rambus was guilty liable for, unclean hands that barred its access to the Court, and that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rambus had committed spoliation of evidence warranting the severe sanction of dismissal;
<<<READ WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT SAMMY'S CONTENTION>>>
................ No. 2 ................
[I HAVE CONSIDERED]((8) the fact that Rambus by now has twice had a full trial on the merits of the issues of spoliation and unclean hands (in this Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California);
<<<READ WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT BAD BOY RMBS>>>
................ No. 3 ................
[I HAVE CONSIDERED]((9) that, on the exceptional case issue, Samsung is prepared to proceed on the factual record on spoliation and unclean hands in the hearing held on February 21 through 2005, in Rambus v. Infineon
<<<READ WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT HOW THIS "SHOULD PROCEED">>>
................ No. 4 ................
it is hereby ORDERED that the adjudication of Samsung's claim for attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C § 285 shall proceed in accordance with the following protocol and procedures and on the following schedule:
<<<I AM GONNA HAVE A NEW "JP PROCEEDING">>>
................ No. 5 ................
(1) the Court finds that no further discovery on the issue of spoliation or unclean hands based on spoliation is needed by either party in order to be able fully and fairly to try, or for the Court to determine, the issue whether this is an exceptional case, as posited by Samsung, and therefore no further discovery will be permitted;
<<<I AM GONNA "TRY" THE ISSUE OF "whether this is an exceptional case, as posited by Samsung" - NOW REFER BACK UP TO No. 1 ABOVE>>>
................ No. 6 ................
(2) In order to decide whether this is an exceptional case:
(a) copies of the record of proceedings in Rambus v. Infineon held on February 21 through February 25, 2005, including all testimony taken and all exhibits introduced therein, shall be made a part of the record in this action;
<<<THE RECORD OF THE KANGAROO CT PROCEEDINGS FROM 2/05 WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW JP PROCEEDING>>>
................ No. 7 ................
(c) Samsung shall be responsible for assuring that the materials identified in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) are physically placed into the record in this action, and shall do so not later than November 15, 2005;
made a part of the record in this action;
<<<SAMMY IS TO BE SURE THE RECORD AND EXHIBITS OF THE KANGAROO CT PROCEEDINGS FROM 2/05 WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE NEW JP PROCEEDING>>>
................ No. 8 ................
(e) the parties shall file briefs respecting whether this is an exceptional case on following schedule:
<<<THE BRIEFS WILL ADDRESS EXCEPTIONAL CASE ISSUE - IGNORING RMBS' POSITION THAT YA CAN'T GET TO THAT ISSUE UNTIL YOU FIND THAT SAMMY WAS A PREVAILING PARTY>>>
.
I'M GONNA REPLY TO YOU FROM MY ORIGINAL POST