Slashdot Mirror


Rambus Patent Claims Dismissed

Gogo Dodo writes "The patent infringement claim by Rambus, the SCO of the chip world, against Infineon have been dismissed by a judge in Virginia due to Rambus destroying documents relating to the lawsuit." Of course, Rambus is already planning an appeal, so this may not be over just yet.

11 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. First Post... by LuYu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is about damn time that Rambus got punished for this. They have been deceiving the court since the beginning. They also lied about pending patents. They should have all of their patents (even the ones unrelated to this case) revoked as punishment for their abuse of the patent system.

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    1. Re:First Post... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First, it's about time. I worked as a videographer in 2000-2001, and taped MANY Rambus/Infineon depositions. I was glad to be in the know about what was going on, but after a while it got quite boring -- except in situations where a lawyer was questioning an expert. I remember one time an Infineon lawyer was questioning a Rambus hired expert and asked him what a flip-flop was. He answered a switch, then the lawyer asked him if it could be used as memory, and the expert (rightly, if you remember your electronics) said in some situations. After an hour, the lawyer still wasn't clear on what a flip-flop was, but the expert had answered every question accurately!

      It was pretty clear, from the beginning (I think one deposition I had to do one Saturday morning was the first in the case), that Rambus was trying to pull a fast one, but all the technicalities let them keep doing it. Unfortunately, the Infineon lawyers were, almost every single one, rude, pompous jerks that reminded me of Commandant Klink swaggering around like they were important and the Rambus lawyers are calm, polite, and great to work for. It was a shame to see the nice guys on the side I hoped would lose.

  2. in addition by em0te · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yeah, they shred documents only when litligation is brought about...but it's all just coincidence. so none of it should be taken into consideration.

    1. Re:in addition by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The stupid thing is, litigation was not "brought about." They brought the damn litigation! I guess they just didn't realize how stupid their claims were until the ridiculousness of it all became apparant in court. Then they probably shredded the documents to cover their ass, avoid countersuits, etc.

  3. Legal Section by nacturation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I, for one, think it's about time the slash overlords created a Legal section. This really doesn't have anything to do with online rights. Similar to the Politics section, a Legal section would hold stories like these, SCO's machinations, and any other article where it's two companies duking it out in court and where my rights aren't affected.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  4. Appeal by alset_tech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You would think that when a company destroys evidence they lose the right to appeal. These are the times in which we live.

    --
    Standing on the shoulders of giants.
  5. Re:Enron and Arthur Andersen by miu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course there are some benefits to being old frat buddies with the president aside from fond memories of keggers and coke.

    --

    [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
  6. Re:Enron and Arthur Andersen by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Martha Stewart gets out of prison today, and starts her house arrest.

    and AFAIK, there's only been one Enron defendent that has actually gone to prison - two if you count that the courts were going to let the man and his wife (names forgotten) server their terms serially, so the other could keep the home with the kids.

    Good to know that justice was swift with a $60k problem that really affected no third parties, and nice and slow (slow as in never?) on a multi-billion dollar problem that bilked thousands out of their retirements and/or life savings. IMHO the noise against Martha last year was a sideshow to divert us from Enron. Last I heard, Ken Lay was putting together a web site to tell "his side of the story."

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  7. Re:SCO of the chip world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have to post anonymously, because I actually KNOW something about this. I was a Rambus licensee, and did a Rambus-based design. I have been to Rambus headquarters. I also know people who were at the JEDEC meetings at the time in question.

    IMHO, your first two sentences are absolutely true. The third is/was false.

    At the time I dealt with Rambus, they had competent engineers and really did have some decent IP. When I was there, I saw a 50-50 mix of engineers and managers, but on my way through the building saw a decent number of CAD-equipped cubicles.

    IMHO, all the litigation is based on what WAS a decent patent application. They just extended it and drew claims on it that they had no business doing.

  8. Re:Slightly offtopic.... by lokedhs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is pretty much standard practice in high-profile cases, which is why you notice them all the time. However, crimes such as speeding and rarely appealed. But then again, they don't end up on the front page of slashdot either.

  9. Re:OT: CmdrPot, meet kettle by Speare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it would be more appropriate to send your comments to CmdrTaco's bosses. It reflects poorly on all of the OSTG sites, to allow it to be run with such a cavalier attitude toward fairness, accuracy, and craftsmanship. CmdrTaco may have started the site as a "whatever I want" blog, but now it's got a life of its own, a responsibility to the community, and he's got a boss to whom he answers.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]