News Focus
News Focus
icon url

JMKel

02/02/03 6:37 PM

#71127 RE: TJ Parker #71106

This article is just a rehash of the case which was tossed out by the CAFC. They ruled there was no fraud, that the disclosure duty to Jedec was satisfied, and the Payne markman was wrong. Of course, this article was written prior to the CAFC rulings as a justification for the FTC action.

Judge Payne set Rambus up for the FTC action when he conjured up a flawed Markman and then ruled that the Rambus patents did not read on the SDRAM or DDR standards. He then called Rambus' patent infringement suit "frivolous" because Rambus presumably knew it did not have a chance of prevailing (since the patents did not read on the standards). <g>

In addition, the phony JEDEC fraud charge gave the FTC the next way to go after Rambus. So you see, we owe the FTC case against Rambus to Judge Payne flawed rulings.

Of course, those of us who have been following the case for the duration are not at all surprised by the FTC action. Especially after hearing of the close ties between Micron attorneys and the FTC and even blood ties to hierarchy of the FTC. <G>

The bottom line is the CAFC rulings have completely gutted any FTC cause of action against Rambus. They knew this when word started leaking out that the CAFC was going against them. It is quite plausible that is why they came up with the longest motion of their case to punish Rambus for "document destruction". The rush to judgement and punishment is the last act of the prosecution which knows their case has fallen apart completely. Thus they want to avoid the trial and further discovery. Incidently, Rambus discovery has been building a RICO price fixing and market manipulation case against certain MM's.

There also is a Department of Justice Investigation ongoing against the MM's at this time as you probably know.

I suppose the FTC can go on a fishing expedition to try to find new facts but the ruling from the CAFC is so unusually clear that eventually the FTC will have to quit their inquisition of Rambus.

Rambus has a duty to it shareholders to protect its intellectual property from expropriation by larger more powerful companies. Rambus is doing what it must do.

In business there are no friends only shifting allegiances based on transient shared interests.

JMO