Perceptions about the trial testimony from the Yahoo board....
Why Rambus should win
by: carrera_from_avn (M/LA)
I am an attorney, but I am not a patent attorney. This second fact in my view does not materially affect my ability to soundly judge what has transpired recently because (1) the body of patent law is small, accessible and easily understandable; and (2) I am a trial lawyer. I am candidly biased towards Rambus and to what is "right" due to what I have observed, both the justice and injustice of it, yet I am often biased in my work based upon the same considerations and am still called upon to objectively evaluate the merits of cases. I have reviewed every transcript of the proceedings before Judge Whyte, including the trial, as well as attended a number of the days of trial. Against this backdrop, I offer the following personal opinion - Rambus should win because:
Mark Horowitz and Mike Farmwald invented something fundamental and revolutionary in common usage throughout the world, including in products sold by Hynix. Their testimony was elegantly simple, refreshingly honest, and deadly to Hynix. In particular, Professor Horowitz engaged the jury as if in a dinner conversation or a masters seminar and I felt as if he opened himself up like a book, said "read me and judge for yourself." On cross-examination, this non-lawyer made Furniss look directionless and entirely uncertain in his position. As with many of my experiences in this trial, this was a valuable lesson to me about how even in our cynically viewed justice system, the sharpest of trial lawyers cannot always overpower intelligent, forthright truthfulness. In other words, it is hard to trap someone in a truth.
The battle of experts was enlightening both for me as a practicioner as well as, I believe, for the jury. For Rambus, Murphy appeared willing to discuss his opinion both with Stone AS WELL AS with Furniss and to have his opinion tested. For Hynix, Taylor appeared arrogant and, frankly, paid for. He seemed unwilling to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue with Rambus' attorneys, and I believe this was not lost on the jury. Fundamentally, I did not find Mr. Taylor's opinion credible that there was a fatal flaw in EACH and EVERY one of these claims missed by the patent examiners. Further, the jury instructions make it clear that Hynix's products infringe two claims. As for the damages experts, Professor Teece is clearly qualified and I found his opinion well reasoned. As for Mr. Weinstein, he simply could not wait to get off the stand. Mr. Stone said it best, to paraphrase, "Hynix called Mr. Weinstein for no purpose at all."
The Hynix employee witnesses hurt Hynix as much as helped them, and the flip-flopping of testimony either on the stand or by way of video deposition playbacks really underscored the weakness of the seemingly manufactured position being advocated, especially as to reasonable royalty rates.
That leaves Graham Allen, Joel Karp, and Neil Steinberg. Mr. Allen's appearance completely backfired on Hynix. He established that Hynix infringed Mosaid's patents, Hynix initially fought this through litigation, and ended up paying Mosaid a great deal of money. Karp and Steinberg's testimony simply destroyed Hynix's case. I have no personal knowledge of the following, but I was left with the impression from the cross-exam that Hynix had spent most of its allocated time in depositions of Karp and Steinberg concentrating on now irrelevant areas of inquiry, and was not prepared to engage these gentlemen on core patent issues. I cannot explain the total failure of this exercise by Hynix of calling these gentlemen to the stand any other way. Again, I was left with the impression of truthfulness having observed their testimony and, to understate the matter, these guys just took Furnis apart.
Having gone through the transcripts again today, I just do not see how a jury could conclude it is "highly probable" Rambus' patents are invalid. I just don't see it. Accordingly, I look forward to visiting the "market manipulators" again shortly.
