Rambus jury in fourth week of deliberation
By Laird HarrisonSAN FRANCISCO, Oct 12 (Reuters) - In its fourth week of deliberations, the jury in Rambus Inc’s $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against Micron and Hynix has yet to reach a verdict — and is reviewing more testimony from the trial.The request to hear a transcript of witness testimony on Wednesday was not accompanied by any further information about when jurors in the California state court trial might render a verdict.Over the course of a trial that lasted more than three months, Rambus accused Idaho-based Micron and South Korea-based Hynix of colluding to fix prices of memory chips used in personal computers and preventing Rambus’s technology from becoming widely used. Rambus claims it lost billions of dollars in business.Micron and Hynix countered that Rambus’s chip technology was plagued by technical problems and that Rambus blames competitors for its own failure.Jurors on Wednesday asked to review the testimony of Michael Sadler, chief sales executive for Micron. In video testimony, he said he had met with Hynix representatives to discuss setting the prices of microchips, and agreed with a Rambus attorney that the conversation was “improper.”The jury has already listened to one readback of Sadler’s testimony, by a court reporter. It lasted more than an hour.At its request, the jury has also listened to testimony by four other witnesses, all of them former executives at Hynix, Micron and their clients.Over the course of four weeks, the jury has deliberated on 11 days. On Tuesday it expanded its schedule from five hours per day to seven hours per day.Any antitrust damages awarded to Rambus could be instantly tripled under California law. Rambus is also seeking punitive damages.Such an award could dramatically change the fortunes of Rambus, which was worth $1.46 billion in stock market value on Wednesday. Rambus shares closed at $15.68 on Wednesday, up nearly 2 percent.The company’s shares often gyrate in tandem with major court decisions.The case in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco is Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al, 04-431105.
Rambus jury in fourth week of deliberation
By Laird HarrisonSAN FRANCISCO, Oct 12 (Reuters) - In its fourth week of deliberations, the jury in Rambus Inc’s $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against Micron and Hynix has yet to reach a verdict — and is reviewing more testimony from the trial.The request to hear a transcript of witness testimony on Wednesday was not accompanied by any further information about when jurors in the California state court trial might render a verdict.Over the course of a trial that lasted more than three months, Rambus accused Idaho-based Micron and South Korea-based Hynix of colluding to fix prices of memory chips used in personal computers and preventing Rambus’s technology from becoming widely used. Rambus claims it lost billions of dollars in business.Micron and Hynix countered that Rambus’s chip technology was plagued by technical problems and that Rambus blames competitors for its own failure.Jurors on Wednesday asked to review the testimony of Michael Sadler, chief sales executive for Micron. In video testimony, he said he had met with Hynix representatives to discuss setting the prices of microchips, and agreed with a Rambus attorney that the conversation was “improper.”The jury has already listened to one readback of Sadler’s testimony, by a court reporter. It lasted more than an hour.At its request, the jury has also listened to testimony by four other witnesses, all of them former executives at Hynix, Micron and their clients.Over the course of four weeks, the jury has deliberated on 11 days. On Tuesday it expanded its schedule from five hours per day to seven hours per day.Any antitrust damages awarded to Rambus could be instantly tripled under California law. Rambus is also seeking punitive damages.Such an award could dramatically change the fortunes of Rambus, which was worth $1.46 billion in stock market value on Wednesday. Rambus shares closed at $15.68 on Wednesday, up nearly 2 percent.The company’s shares often gyrate in tandem with major court decisions.The case in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco is Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al, 04-431105.
Rambus In The Green, Thank You For Royalties ! http://newish.info/116579-rambus-in-the-green-thank-you-for-royalties
Spansion signed the permission agreement of the patent with Rambus
Rambus has signed the permission agreement of a five -year patent with the flashing memory manufacturer Spansion Company. This agreement based on patent fee, make Spansion use many kinds of patents of Rambus. U.S.A. Rambus Company showed a few days ago, it is estimated the above-mentioned permission agreement will not bring the generous income to it. The concrete clause of this agreement has not revealed.
Sign the semi-conductive supplier and more and more system manufacturers of the permission agreement of the patent with Rambus, include AMD, Elpida, Fujitsu, strange to dream of in Damien, Panasonic, NEC, auspicious Sa’s science and technology and Toshiba. Executive vice president and concurrently chief law officer Robert Melendres of Spansion show, the aforesaid permits preliminary memory products used for expanding it and facing the mobile phone to employ.
Rambus asked about shredded records in Nvidia case
* Other judge: ITC may use wrong standard to take cases By Diane Bartz WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Chip technology company Rambus Inc (RMBS.O) was quizzed in court about destroyed documents and its own use of its patents as graphics chip maker Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) sought relief from expensive licensing fees. The two sides squared off on Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether Nvidia infringed Rambus patents for controlling and managing the flow of computer data to and from a chip’s memory. The U.S. International Trade Commission, which hears patent cases involving imports, had previously found Nvidia infringed Rambus chip patents and issued an order barring the importation of any chip made with the infringing technology. Nvidia licensed the Rambus technology at royalty rates of between 1 percent and 2 percent depending on the type of memory controller involved, to allow its chips to enter the country, but the legal battle has continued. The ITC had found that Nvidia infringed three patents but did not infringe two others. Both sides appealed to the circuit court and the arguments were consolidated. Part of the battle has centered on whether Rambus destroyed documents to avoid having them used against it in litigation. Rambus has acknowledged document destruction but said it was part of ordinary business practices. Judge Kathleen O’Malley, part of a three-judge panel that heard the case, took issue with an attorney for Rambus who said the company produced the documents that were requested and that all relevant documents were preserved. “You admit you have no idea what was destroyed! You have no record of what was destroyed!” she said. “Remember, you saved the ones that helped you and destroyed the ones that hurt you,” O’Malley said at another point. The appeals court previously ruled in cases between Rambus and Micron Technology (MU.O) and Hynix Semiconductor (000660.KS) that Rambus destroyed documents inappropriately. The cases have been remanded back to lower courts for further consideration. The battle is a key one for Nvidia, whose core business relies on the sale of specialized graphics cards. Judge Raymond Clevenger on Thursday repeatedly asked whether Rambus had proved that it used the patents that it was seeking to defend. Companies may not sue at the International Trade Commission unless they show that they are using the patent domestically. Rambus licensed the patents, and used that to proceed with the lawsuit. Clevenger said district courts cannot order production or importation of infringing products to cease since the Supreme Court said in a 2006 decision that an injunction should not necessarily follow a finding of infringement. “It’s a factor we should think about,” he said. Rambus and others go to the ITC to file patent complaints because the trade commission, unlike U.S. district courts, can bar the importation of devices made with infringing technology. The case against Nvidia and others that was before the International Trade Commission is number 337-661. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case numbers are 2010-1483 and 2010-1556.
Rambus asked about shredded records in Nvidia case
* Other judge: ITC may use wrong standard to take cases By Diane Bartz WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Chip technology company Rambus Inc (RMBS.O) was quizzed in court about destroyed documents and its own use of its patents as graphics chip maker Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) sought relief from expensive licensing fees. The two sides squared off on Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether Nvidia infringed Rambus patents for controlling and managing the flow of computer data to and from a chip’s memory. The U.S. International Trade Commission, which hears patent cases involving imports, had previously found Nvidia infringed Rambus chip patents and issued an order barring the importation of any chip made with the infringing technology. Nvidia licensed the Rambus technology at royalty rates of between 1 percent and 2 percent depending on the type of memory controller involved, to allow its chips to enter the country, but the legal battle has continued. The ITC had found that Nvidia infringed three patents but did not infringe two others. Both sides appealed to the circuit court and the arguments were consolidated. Part of the battle has centered on whether Rambus destroyed documents to avoid having them used against it in litigation. Rambus has acknowledged document destruction but said it was part of ordinary business practices. Judge Kathleen O’Malley, part of a three-judge panel that heard the case, took issue with an attorney for Rambus who said the company produced the documents that were requested and that all relevant documents were preserved. “You admit you have no idea what was destroyed! You have no record of what was destroyed!” she said. “Remember, you saved the ones that helped you and destroyed the ones that hurt you,” O’Malley said at another point. The appeals court previously ruled in cases between Rambus and Micron Technology (MU.O) and Hynix Semiconductor (000660.KS) that Rambus destroyed documents inappropriately. The cases have been remanded back to lower courts for further consideration. The battle is a key one for Nvidia, whose core business relies on the sale of specialized graphics cards. Judge Raymond Clevenger on Thursday repeatedly asked whether Rambus had proved that it used the patents that it was seeking to defend. Companies may not sue at the International Trade Commission unless they show that they are using the patent domestically. Rambus licensed the patents, and used that to proceed with the lawsuit. Clevenger said district courts cannot order production or importation of infringing products to cease since the Supreme Court said in a 2006 decision that an injunction should not necessarily follow a finding of infringement. “It’s a factor we should think about,” he said. Rambus and others go to the ITC to file patent complaints because the trade commission, unlike U.S. district courts, can bar the importation of devices made with infringing technology. The case against Nvidia and others that was before the International Trade Commission is number 337-661. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case numbers are 2010-1483 and 2010-1556.
Rambus indicts a memory trader beautifully and only infringes relevant patent DDR
Like the intersection of memory and technology research and development and patentee that lawsuit safeguard the rights Rambus manufacturer American to only litigate to memory again a few days ago, accuse products such as its DDR,etc. have infringed relevant patent Rambus.
Before this, American court forbids Rambus to only litigate to U.S.A. again within certain time limit, and this prohibition ended a few days ago, and Rambus submitted the pleadings busily in the local court of union of north district of California without end. Rambus claims, DDR2, GDDR2, GDDR3 and other memory products that U.S.A. only produced have infringed the exclusive right of department of this company.
U.S.A. responsible for the intersection of law and the intersection of senior vice-president and John - red the intersection of good fortune and Sri Lankan of affair show U.S.A. sure oneself there is sufficient evidence that proves the esthetic illegal activities at exclusive right only only, but the beautiful light has hoped to reach conciliation outside the court. Rambus thinks, its exclusive right should guarantee it obtains patent fee accounting for 3% of sales amount at least.
According to Rambus, there is ” involves ” in this lawsuit and lawsuit of a series of patent infringement at present : Rambus tells modernly, Rambus sues Samsung, Rambus tells modern, Samsung, South Asia science and technology at the same time.
Rambus Company is with Rambus DRAM (RDRAM) But technology is famous, but fail to replace the standard that SDRAM becomes new memory, is seized the trend of events by DDR instead. This company is similar to high pass, does not have one’s own chip works, main business lines are researched and developed and the patent is authorized. So Rambus lodge a complaint the memory manufacturer on the grounds of being infringe exclusive right often.
American district court decided last Friday Rambus lost a lawsuit in the American mere patent
American district court decided last Friday, the chip design trader Rambus had destroyed the associated documents of the case, and forbid this company to direct against the chip trader of the memory beautifully and merely (Micron) Patent protection of the scientific & technical corporation. It last stock price this items of resolution from at drop until 7.09 dollars one of 11.41 dollars on trading days, the amount of decrease is 38%.
Sue Robinson judge of Delaware State is indicated by its stiff intonation while reading out the judgement, “the whole lawsuit course has been criticized all the time. ” Rambus plans to lodge a appeal. The award that this company represents Robinson judge is inconsistent with the investigation result that this court carries on in California.
U.S.A. only prosecuted Rambus Company in early time, accused the latter destroyed the evidence in the case. Rambus claims a lot of memory chip traders have infringed the patent of DRAM performance improvement that this company holds. The senior vice-presidents and concurrently chief advisors Tom Lavelle of this company represented in a statement, the federal court of California ” investigated this case at the same time, and not found us any improper in dealing with the file. ”
The case that Rambus submits is still undecided. The district court of California of U.S.A. is considering Rambus Company to the sea wrestler (Hynix) , South Asia (Nanya) , American light and Samsung (Samsung) Prosecution case of the company. This company still represents the state court that will submit San Francisco to Samsung, sea wrestler and American photic lawsuit in March.
Jury delivers antitrust blow to Rambus
bit.lyJury delivers antitrust blow2:Memory-chip designer Rambus lost more than 60 per cent of its stock market val #:
http://www.discountram.tk/rambus_ram.html rambus ram
The strange dream is reached as the systematic batch productino Rambus XDR DRAM of PS3 computer amusement
Strange to dream of, up to company high-speed the intersection of memory and global leading technology of framework authorize the intersection of company and Rambus declare the intersection of Boucher and dream reach, begin as the intersection of PLAYSTATION and 3( PS3) already together with good at specially The systematic quantity of the computer amusement produces the goods XDR DRAM.
Strange batch the intersection of 512 Mb XDR DRAM and sample up toed to dream of begin outloading on will it be January 2008 already. XDR memory solution expanded Damien’s favourable primary form memory (specialty RAM portfolio) of dreaming of very Products overall arrangement, can meet the computer growing up fast in the whole world and application demand for the high-bandwidth with high capacity and efficiency of electronic product market of consumption.
XDR memory framework can support the high capacity and have application of cost competitiveness. Strange to dream of Damien XDR DRAM device is that two are wide, the transmission rate is 3.2Gbps, the memory bandwidth of the crest value reaches 6.4GB/ S. and ranges broadly from 12.8GB/s with the blueprint development of the products frequently to the transmission rate 6.4Gbps and every device, XDR DRAM possesses stronger efficiency than now’s normal form memory. Using XDR DRAM, the designer can reach maximized efficiency with the minimum assembly.
There is integral overall project support service of system in the once award-winning XDR memory, enable it to build up and innovate in all patents Rambus technically directly, including low-voltage, low power consumption Differential Rambus Signaling Level (DRSL) , each one 8 machine format Octal Data Rate (ODR)s transmissible in frequency Technology, can do perfect updated FlexPhase circuit Engineering of data, and can strengthen the signal completeness and point-to-point technology (DPP) of trends of the ductility with the frequency .
