Replies to post #8501 on Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

but let's remember:

Patent claims enjoy a presumption of validity once issued. 35 U.S.C. § 282. A party seeking to invalidate a patent claim must provide a high degree of proof to overcome this presumption. The legal standard for this proof is “clear and convincing” evidence of invalidity, more stringent than the “preponderance” standard used by the examiner during prosecution. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 60 (1923); see also 1D.S. Chisum, CHISUM ON PATENTS, § 3.05 (2004). http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/477/Altering_Patent.pdf

[calbiker]

Re. I used to work in memory development with the now-famous Don Redwine.

LOL, the guy is BS'ing you. Ha.

But that doesn't mean there isn't any risk involved. The cheerleaders already told us it's 'game set & match'. Don't believe anything they say and keep away from those comic books. Ha. There's still a hell of a lot of risk.

It appears that Hynix prevailed on about half of their arguments, and for the other half JW said that the evidence was not sufficient as a matter of law. In other words, half of the arguments are a slam dunk for Hynix, and the other half need to be argued before a jury.

Internal_fire- We'll call your bluff. Exactly which half of the arguments are a slam dunk for Hynix? Your credibility is on the line. ;-)

Get your ass over here & explain yourself.