And if the answer is yes, you still don't see any problems with the way justice is being meted out in this country? From my perspective, your statement argues more towards the problems that exist than to the fact that the system is stable. [edited] _____________________ Become a Complete Fool
This is the problem with cynicism, it ignores reality. The drafters of the Constitution knew that the system would continuously be threatened by a variety of threats from bribery to the threat of populism. The drafters, in great wisdom, therefore created checks and balances in the system.
Choice of venue is one of those checks and balances in the system. The system is run by human beings; human beings are susceptible to bias; therefore, to minimize this possibility, Plaintiff gets to choose venue. Rambus's attorneys chose to overlook this protection.
This leaves Rambus with yet another layer of checks and balances - appeal. Another measure of protection, should Judge Payne have been totally out of his mind in making his decision.
I do not know if Judge Payne was improperly influenced and therefore not a neutral and impartial juror. Neither do you or anyone else. The most likely reason for his decision is because he preferred to interpret patents narrowly (a trend in the patent courts these days - and a valid policy depending on your perspective of restraints on trade - patents inherently restrain trade), and that he thought Rambus's participation in JEDEC as being somewhat suspicious (as have many pro-Rambus advocates).
I still wonder what Rambus was doing there, given that they had Intel to push their case. And Rambus never really gave a good reason for their participation. Albeit, the case does seem strong that Infineon and friends did snipe Rambus IP (but then again, it is fair game to reverse engineer, and steal IP so long as it does not technically violate the patent. This is conduct that has gone on forever. In addition, it seems Infineon violated confidentiality agreements - but Rambus never raised these issues. It is also true that the system has worked fine for the likes of QCOM and GMST).
But what I think or don't think is irrelevant as the judge made his decision, and it will be reviewed by the appellate court. But if Rambus's attorneys had a justified fear that maybe, maybe, the judge might be biased, improperly influenced, et al., WHY DID THEY NOT TAKE THE REASONABLE COURSE OF ACTION OF FILING ELSEWHERE. For purposes of Federal venue Rambus could have had venue in any district in which personal jurisdiction could be had over Infineon; pretty much anywhere in the country. And yes, they could have tried it in a California district.
So no, I don't see the system as being broken. I see the system working as well, and better, than any system has ever worked, for such a long duration, in any society that the planet Earth has ever been witness to. Is it perfect, no. But that is inherent in any human endeavor. It is better than anything that came before it, and better than any other system in the world today. Is it getting better? Yes, believe it or not. There is less corruption today than there was 100 years ago, believe it or not. Don't believe me? Try a little historical research.
The bottom line being, there is no perfection in human systems. The Constitution never made a claim to perfect justice. It provides the framework to create a durable system that works, overtime, to come as close as humanely possible. It is not and never was intended to be perfect.
Join the best community on the web! Becoming a full member of the Fool Community is easy, takes just a minute, and is very inexpensive.
And if the answer is yes, you still don't see any problems with the way justice is being meted out in this country? From my perspective, your statement argues more towards the problems that exist than to the fact that the system is stable.
Become a Complete Fool