Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Upholds Rambus Fraud Ruling
LordArathres writes "The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia has refused to do away with Infinion Technologies' fraud charges against Rambus Inc. based on alleged failure to disclose its SDRAM patent applications to the JEDEC standards group. This action allows Infineon attorneys to depose Rambus officials and attorneys concerning legal discussions about disclosure of the SDRAM patent applications to JEDEC during the time when the company participated in panel discussions of SDRAM open standards. Client-attorney privileges do not apply in cases of possible fraud. The trial will officially begin April 17.
Story Here"
Actually, I worked for a number of years at that company. I was a systems designer and was TCB(tm). In fact, I noticed first-hand the level of corruption. Sometimes managers and their ilk would purposely shirk on product specifications and when designers complained that the product would not be put together properly, they were silenced. There was one incident where one of the CEOs laid off a worker simply because he objected to the false advertising they were perpetuating.
The scary part is that I know that was not the only company where such practices were relatively commonplace.
Incorrect. Under American legal ethics rules, lawyers don't have to report confessions. (Under the ethics rules in most American jurisdictions, a lawyer does a limited "duty to warn" when a client has told the lawyer that he intends to commit a crime involving serious bodily harm or damage to property (e.g., "I'm going to kill my ex-wife Friday," "I'm going to burn down the widget factory tonight"). But if the crime is already over, there's no duty to report the confession.)
Note, however, that a lawyer can't put a witness on the stand who the lawyer knows will commit perjury. So if a client confesses to a lawyer, the lawyer can't put the client up on the stand to say "I didn't do it," though that doesn't mean the lawyer can't plead "not guilty" on the client's behalf.
There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege called the "crime-fraud exception" which means that if a client uses his lawyer's services to commit a crime -- e.g., to commit a fraud, to pass a bad check to his creditors -- he has no privilege. But there's got to be some upfront showing that the client did in fact do that before a court will compel the client's attorney to testify.
The Rambus lawyers are potentially in a _lot_ more trouble than perjury and lost licenses. Infineon has alleged that Rambus engaged in a pattern of corrupt practices, in conspiracy with their lawyers and others ("Secret Squirrel" and "Deep Throat" - Rambus moles in JEDEC after Rambus resigned). These charges invoke Federal RICO statutes that have _very_ harsh penalties, as they were created and used to imprison and confiscate the ill-gotten assets of Mafia families and drug-running conspiracies.
What the Court just did was refuse to throw out the allegations that invoke the RICO jeopardies. If these charges stick, then not only will Rambus lose its patent claims, but its assets could be confiscated, and some Rambus executives and lawyers might be taking early retirement... in Federal penal institutions. Couldn't happen to nicer people...
How the hell can they refuse to release detail?
The patent is a means to release knowledge to the public.
I know a lot of people think that the patent office is some sort of test of ingenuity for inventions and if you win you get to keep everyone from building your invention.
However, that has nothing to do with reality. Just because you think something belongs to you, doesn't mean it's yours.
In reality, if you don't realease details then people will need to be as creative as you to invent the same thing.
Rule 1. Nothing in reality prevents anyone from inventing the same thing, except cost and lack of talent.
Rule 2. If you release the documentation then anyone can make a copy.
Rule 3. Most would not release or would release only to neighbors since it would be costly to release everywhere even if they wanted to.
In reality, though we may have technologies to maximize sharing possibilities, we have several things that drain resources.
1. We need food, clothes, water, and property. We are not plants, stones, hard skinned animals, nor programs..
2. We need cash to get all these things.
3. We need jobs to get cash.
Abusing patents hurts the job market which cascades and forces companies to abuse patents even more.
The odd thing is that a company that abuses a patent often has no other recourse to shut up ignorant shareholders. Even if the abuse of the patent will not result in greater revenue, idiot investors will set a value for the company higher than it's truly worth.
Frankly, refusing to release patent details should negate the patent.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
[satire]Thats a dangerously unamerican thing to say! These gentlemen, these dreamers, these HEROS awoke with a dream -- a dream to subvert a standards body and profit from that deciet.
This is infact the american dream. Money for nothing.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
The court of appeals for the FEDERAL CIRCUIT, has exclusive jurisdiction over appeal from patent infringement cases. I don't think the reporter got his court right in the story.
The Fourth Circuit does not show a disposition of a Rambus case. However, the Federal Circuit does show last weeks dispositions including a denial of mandamus "In Re Rambus Inc." (Sorry, no opinion on the site.)
As if anyone cares about the difference but me, but I needed to vent about the reporter apparently not even checking which court issued the ruling.
The way it works is that:
First, the person who wants to protect the documents has to show that they were in communication between an attorney and a client regarding legal advice. That establishes the existence of the privilege. The judge may or may not need to look at the documents ("in camera" inspection) to do this.
Second, the person who wants to break the privilege has to show why the privilege does not hold. The most common reason is that the document was shown to somebody who other than the attorney or client.
In this case that reason is the "crime-fraud" exception. This is what was used in the tobacco cases to get some of those documents. You have to make a showing that the client was using the attorney's advice to commit a crime or a fraud. That's a fairly hard showing without the document. You can't get the document before you make the showing required to get the document. However, the judge might look at it, and then decide you can have it.
Patents are public knowledge, etc. Patent applications are probably not, until the patent is granted.
Actually, Europe and (since recently) the US publish patent applications eighteen months after filing, giving potential infringers ample time to back out of the market.
Will I retire or break 10K?
NEW YORK -- Shares of Rambus today plummeted to a record low as investors reacted to an anonymous Slashdot poster's announcement that he would no longer be conducting business with them. "Screw Rambus," said the poster, "I'll NEVER BUY THEIR SHIT." Rambus spokespersons denied that the company would have difficulty meeting third quarter sales projections as a result, but analysts are clearly worried...
It is about time rambus got in trouble over it's silly patents. Moveover, their lawyers have become a liability now that they have to testify. I didn't thing things would get that good. :>
I am getting tired of companies playing the patent everything game; it is about time it blows up in someone's face.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
One exception to attorney-client privilege occurrs if the attorney and client are accomplices in the crime. Perhaps they are alleging that the attorneys had a role in the crime (which they would have if they were filing the patents)?
IANAL, etc.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.