Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick




Rambus Sued Again

from the here-come-the-attacks dept

Last week we wrote about the announcement from Rambus that it was about to go after every mobile phone maker, claiming pretty much all of them violated its patents. At the time, we pointed to some of the stories about Rambus in the past, that suggested the company had done some nefarious things. When posting, I forgot that Rambus is infamous for having a crew of incredibly vocal investors who flood the stock message boards -- and who trample on anyone who suggests anything possibly negative about the company. Beyond a long series of comments questioning how we could possibly write anything negative about the company, we also received a series of emails telling us that we obviously had some ulterior motive for speaking ill of the company, and we would soon be hearing from Rambus's lawyers. While that may happen, it would seem that Rambus' lawyers may have some more important things on their hands right now -- such as yet another lawsuit, this time from Micron. The lawsuit accuses Rambus of many of the things we mentioned last week, which we were quickly ridiculed for. Whether or not those things are true, it seems that the accusations aren't going away any time soon.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Brad, 22 Feb 2006 @ 2:11am

    Hah!

    Hah! Eat it, you long string of Rambus shareholders who are sure to follow this post with crude hate-posts.

    Eat it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Simon, 22 Feb 2006 @ 2:49am

    Has Rambus sued IBM

    I can't see any lawsuit against IBM. I wonder if they are afraid of taking on ol' Big Blue?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rambutt, 22 Feb 2006 @ 4:46am

    No Subject Given

    I'm suing you. And you. And you over there. And you. You too. And you. And you. And you. You too, over there. And you. And you. And you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    A. Lloyd Flanagan, 22 Feb 2006 @ 6:55am

    Incredibly vocal investors?

    Or a bunch of employees posing as investors?
    I'm not alleging anything here, just asking a question.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andrew Schmitt, 22 Feb 2006 @ 6:57am

    Why partner with Rambus

    I find it remarkable that anyone would think about partnering with Rambus on anything.

    They pushed into the SERDES business for datacom/telecom chips, and several companies have licensed their stuff. It seems like you would be partnering with an arachnid that will eventually turn and eat you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rambus sucks..., 22 Feb 2006 @ 5:35pm

    No Subject Given

    Let the Rambus Fags run in here now...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    pt, 22 Feb 2006 @ 8:34pm

    YOU CAN'T SPELL MICRON WITHOUT RICO!

    Is this the same Micron that is currently cooperating with the DOJ's leniency program in order to avoid prosecution as part of the biggest price fixing cartel in the DOJ's history?

    Are you talking about the SDRAM JEDEC standard that does not require Rambus patents? Well atleast according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Judge Rader (one of the preeminent patent judges in the country), but why should we believe them.
    Is this the same JEDEC that in 2000-2001, *years* after they were made aware of Rambus intellectual property and their plan to protect it, continued to adobt Rambus technology into their DDR2 standard? seriously, wtf?

    A single judge has ruled against Rambus. He was overturned on almost every important decision by the Court of Appeals. The FTC's judge (after the longest and most thorough trial in FTC history) completely cleared Rambus. Currently, a judge in California in the case of Rambus v. Hynix has cleared Rambus of any wrongdoing and is proceeding with a patent trial. Does it help to know that the one judge who has ruled against Rambus was a former partner of the law firm representing Infineon - a member of the DRAM cartel?

    If Rambus is as bad as you guys seem to think, why has every judge except one completely disagreed with the one judge and cleared Rambus of any wrongdoing? Are you guys just victims of the PR campaign of a multi-billion dollar cartel that has already admitted to felonies and price-fixing? Just something you should ask yourself. Who's story are you more likely to hear...the one coming from 4 companies worth tens of billions of dollars and strong business ties to various governments? Or the small, young IP company who did not have the money (or forethought) for public relations at the time?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2006 @ 8:41pm

      Re: YOU CAN'T SPELL MICRON WITHOUT RICO!

      well, that took a little longer than expected.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ??, 22 Feb 2006 @ 9:51pm

        Re: YOU CAN'T SPELL MICRON WITHOUT RICO!

        Lol...I can't believe these people actually search for their own name in forums and internet sites in order to post questionable facts about their business dealings. You guys should question your professionalism and code of conduct. You're a BUSINESS not a 4th grade public school kid getting your lunch money taken by the local bully.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          pt, 22 Feb 2006 @ 11:36pm

          questionable facts

          "questionable facts"

          please feel free to dispute any of the 'questionable facts' i have posted. As it is, all you did was question my integrity, which is usually the first sign of someone who has no idea what the facts are. and i don't work for Rambus by the way.

          you guys make me laugh...."price fixing? sure, that's fine. stealing intellectual property? yeah, no big deal. BUT I'LL BE DAMNED IF A COMPANY DEFENDS THEMSELVES PUBLICALLY!!! YOU BASTARDS!!!" Quite a moral compass you have.

          (I'll save you some time and post some facts. but don't let me deter you. if you find something incorrect that I've posted, by all means fill me in.)

          Micron DOJ, Micron employees fixed DRAM prices

          "Infineon did not show any expectation that the patents and applications identified by the district court covered the SDRAM standard.[11] Instead, the record shows that, despite Rambusís best efforts, Rambus did not obtain SDRAM claims."
          (ie. Rambus has no patents covering the JEDEC SDRAM standard)
          CAFC decision (Search for Conclusion to find the part where they reverse anything against rambus and affirm the decisions for rambus)

          "(1) the EIA/JEDEC patent policy encouraged the early, voluntary disclosure of essential patents and Respondent did not violate this policy; (2) the case law upon which Complaint Counsel rely to impose antitrust liability is clearly distinguishable on the facts of this case; (3) Respondent's conduct did not amount to deception and did not violate any 'extrinsic duties,' such as a duty of good faith to disclose relevant patent information; (4) Respondent did not have any undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose; (5) amendments to broaden Respondent's patent applications while a member of JEDEC were not improper, either as a matter of law or fact; (6) by having a legitimate business justification for its actions, Respondent did not engage in exclusionary conduct; (7) Respondent did not intentionally mislead JEDEC by knowingly violating a JEDEC disclosure rule; (8) there is no causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent's acquisition of monopoly power; (9) members of JEDEC did not rely on any alleged omission or misrepresentation by Respondent and, if they had, such reliance would not have been reasonable; (10) the challenged conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects, as Complaint Counsel did not demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to Respondent's superior technologies; (11) the challenged conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects as the challenged conduct did not result in higher prices to consumers; and (12) JEDEC is not locked in to using Respondent's technologies in its current standardization efforts."
          from the FTC decision

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    angry dude, 23 Feb 2006 @ 8:39am

    techdirt ignorance


    What the fuck are you talking about ?
    As a small guy with one patent I am thoroughly disgusted to read all the BS comments by Mike and other idiots...
    You guys are fucking idiots if you think that judges and juries keep siding with plaintiff out of their ignorance or misinformation or whatever...
    You are the people who are really misinformed and at least some of you are just fucking brain-dead...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      John, 23 Feb 2006 @ 12:24pm

      Re: techdirt ignorance

      > What the fuck are you talking about ?< br>
      Who are you addressing?

      > As a small guy with one patent I am thoroughly disgusted to read all the BS comments by Mike and other idiots...

      Can you enlighten us as to which comments are BS?

      > You guys are fucking idiots if you think that judges and juries keep siding with plaintiff out of their ignorance or misinformation or whatever...

      Did someone say that?

      > You are the people who are really misinformed and at least some of you are just fucking brain-dead...

      And yet you add absolutely nothing of value to the conversation other than a string of insults. And we're supposed to take you seriously?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.