Replies to post #7962 on Rambus (RMBS)

[justmyopinion-ntim]

smd1234 - It's also important to note that Whyte asked Rambus to decide what claims of the original 54 (or 59) to take to trial, and to limit it to 10.

Rambus said they needed to know what claims Whyte would issue SJ's on. After Whyte picked 29 of them, Rambus picked 8 of the strongest claims from the remaining claims, plus two of those Whyte had already issued SJ's on.

Of course, Whyte then pulled back some of the SJ's because Hynix said they weren't prepared for certain arguments because the dog ate their homework.

So some of the claims with SJ's that were pulled back may have actually been better candidates for the trial than the 8/10 that are being tried. However, Whyte said Rambus could argue for SJ's again on those claims. I don't know what timeframe he allowed.

So the fact that Rambus' claims in the trial seem weak is more of a function of what claims were remaining after SJ's were issued and retracted.

[calbiker]

Re. Royalty rate.

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.

There was a notion by some longs that a one claim win will still get them ~5% royalty. This was the basis of the discussion. Pretty much all our calculations at iHub are seat of the pants. If you want to razzle and dazzle us, please be my guest.

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.

And that's when he conducted the analysis; right after the patents pretaining to DDR and SDRAM were issued. Do you have problems with that?