Well, that was a hell of an ending.
Cal did loose this worm fuzzy feeling. It’s been replaced with restrained optimism. A victory is not as clear cut anymore. Both Nissley and Stone did an excellent job. I’m not going to go through a blow by blow rehash, but give a general overview.
The case rests on the interpretation of the law for unclean hands. Nessley defined it something like this:
A willful act that transgresses equitable standards.
The willful act in this case is the destruction of docs when Rambus anticipated litigation. The key here is anticipate litigation, not after litigation started. And now the real question is: when did Rambus anticipate litigation.
Nessley argues Rambus knew they would need to litigate from the start because the royalty fees they were demanding for infringing DRAM was not acceptable (go pound sand would be the MMs reply). Nessley states they were as high as the low teens, as Tate had testified. He claims, Rambus knew the MMs would not accept this exorbitant royalty rate. Rambus had to litigate. Now this, I believe is their key argument.
During his hour plus talk, I believe Nissley accused Tate, Steinberg, & Karp of lying. Nessley’s nose (as well) got quite a bit longer when referring to this really high royalty rate that Rambus was demanding. Trial testimony showed the rate was much lower, around 5%. And 5% was the starting point for negotiations, meaning it could end lower. The 11% (or so) Tate quoted in court was an analysis he conducted to determine that DRAM would cost 11% more to produce if all Rambus IP was removed. In other words, Rambus’ IP was worth 11% to the MMs. They were only asking 5%. Stone didn’t tear this argument apart. He did mention Nessley’s royalty rate error, but just in passing.
More to come from the free press.
