Replies to post #6171 on Rambus (RMBS)

[jaw_nee_g]

Let me get this straight...TR Labs is claiming that Rambus didn't design the elements it claims in its '703 patent granted on September 7,1993 and thus Rambus should not collect royalties on those designs. Instead, the royalties, as well as damages, should go to TR Labs because they "designed" those elements in their '277 patent granted on November 1, 1994, over 1 year later.

The '277 patent references 4 patents as prior art.
The '703 patent references 53 patents and 21 articles/papers.

Based on the above, I don't doubt that this argument would actually be of some merit in His Nibs courtroom.

-Johnny-

[Skeptic]

``It would be unfair for Rambus, as opposed to TR Labs, to
retain the revenues derived from licensing' the patents,
Alberta-based TR Labs said in the lawsuit filed Nov. 15 in
Richmond, Virginia.

Interesting that this wasn't mentioned on Analyst Day. I have to believe that Rambus would be made aware of the fact that they were being served.

Like the rest of the market, I don't place much weight in this going anywhere.

Need to roll my Nov 15s - looks like the MMs aren't going to do me any favors.

[docrew0]

Re: You would think TR Labs could have filed this lawsuit years ago if it had merit.

Nice find Threejack. If they do hold a legitimate patent someone has been timing this one very carefully so they can get a small piece of the pie. They didn’t want to tip their hand too soon or they would have had to pay millions defending against the chipmakers. No they waited for a biased Judge who is hell-bent on hurting Rambus a Judge who has created a claim construction that suites them.

As far as I’m concerned this only strengthens my resolve. When the snakes come out of woodwork you know the big money can’t be far away for Rambus.

docrew0