The royalty rate for damages purposes is not determined by a mechanical formula of
3.5% divided by 6 = ~.6% per invention
Implying that it is so determined is sophistry.
An analysis like Tate's would have to be done AS TO THAT INVENTION as of the time of the infringement. What Rambus was asking as a rate long before the infringement in question is of little probative value.
smd
==========================================
One of the many deficiencies cheerleaders have is that they can’t read straight. They read what they want to hear. Nothing else. Nic’s and cal’s opinion on fair royalty rates don’t jive at all. Your (and other cheerleaders residing here) attempt at cal’s character assassination isn’t going to work. Only by making a honest assessment of the pros and cons of rmbs can one make an intelligent decision whether to buy sell or hold. You, my dear friend got your head stuck deep in sand, leaving your ass extremely vulnerable. That’s not the position cal wants to be in, nor does any intelligent investor.
I had used the logic that if Rambus thought 3.5% royalty was fair for the 6 inventions contained in DDR, and if the court finds only one invention valid then it could be argued that one invention is worth <1%.
Let’s take your data and your approach. You state each invention is worth 2 to 5%. This means Hynix has a 2 to 5% savings in this one claim win scenario. The law states Rambus can’t claim this total savings. They can only claim a fraction of the savings. We’ll use Tate’s analysis to determine the correct factor we can apply. At the unclean hands trial Tate stated he calculated the savings Rambus IP had on SDRAM was ~10%. If Rambus was asking for 2% on SDRAM, then the factor is 2/10 = 20%. Therefore if one invention provides savings of 2 to 5%, then Rambus should be able to claim 2% * 20% = 0.4% to 5% * 20% = 1%.
Either way we calculate the royalty rate for just one invention, it comes out to less than 1%.
