eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (07/03/90)
In article <5969@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: In article <25565@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>An Hitachi spokesman said his company expects a negotiated settlement ot >>take 60 to 90 days. >You had to figure they'd cut a deal. The 68030 was too important to Motorola. >Hitachi probably got a good deal because I don't think they cared as much >about the H8 or whatever it was that they weren't going to be allowed to sell. These posts seem a little naive to me. Hitachi got caught with its pants down and in a very compromising position late last month (June). Originally, Hitachi got caught by Motorola with its hand in the cookie jar. Hitachi tried by its countersuit to make it too expensive for Motorola to see this case through. This strategy just backfired. Motorola found a case where the Hitachi patent Motorola is accused of infringing had been ruled invalid due to prior art. (Technically, the defendant was found not to be in violation of the patent due to a previous patent, not owned by Hitachi but which the defendant in that case had a license for, covering the same ground.) BUT, Hitachi had failed to release any information about this case during discovery, they didn't even mention its existance. (Motorola also has a license agreement with the holder of the prior patent, and the patent was to be part of their defense if this went to trial.) To translate, Motorola had asked Hitachi (under oath during a pre-trial hearing) if they had a record. Hitachi said no. Motorola just found out that Hitachi spent 5 years in the big house under a different name. Hitachi can't contend that they forgot. (At least not with a straight face.) If this case goes to court, Hitachi could be found in contempt of court, guilty of perjury, guilty of concealing evidence, etc. Motorola could be entitled to collect civil, criminal, AND punitive damages. (And once awarded--and it is a pretty legal dance with the defendant squirming in his chair--Motorola's counsel would point out that this action was a violation of anti-trust law, and the judge would automatically triple the damages.) And since the SAME law firm represented Hitachi in both cases there is no possibility of a mitigating plea of ignorance. So of course Hitachi is now stating publically that they are willing to settle. Every penny of future damage to Motorola's business will come out of Hitachi's hide ten times over. However, Motorola may hold out for a controlling interest in Hitachi--then again they might want more. Hitachi's strategy has been to make Motorola risk backruptcy to see this case through. Now that Hitachi has been caught naked, I don't expect Motorola to be polite winners. In any case, don't worry about supplies of 68030's and 68040's. I am not a lawyer (the function I fill on certain standards committees is called language lawyer, so sometimes I sound like one) and I don't have any standing in the case (see what did I tell you), but if I were advising Hitachi, I would tell their CEO and Board of Directors to don sackcloth and ashes and visit Motorola to ask what they could do to atone, nod politely no matter what is said, and go do it. (And note the paragraph long sentences...) The damages that could be awarded to Motorola if this does go to trial could be greater than the total value of Hitachi. (Remember the Texaco case?) Because of Japanese interlocking directorates, if there is any finding of criminal intent or fraud, Motorola could even go after much of the collective assets of Japan Inc. So Hitachi is now in the position that they tried to put Motorola in--they can't afford to let this case go to trial. I would not be surprised if the final agreement gives Motorola a license to all Hitachi patents, and thirty per cent of Hitachi, while Hitachi gets the right to produce the 68030 under license (at unspecified royalties) or some such face-saving deal. But expect it to be very favorable to Motorola, and to leave Hitachi happy if they still have their shirt on. -- Robert I. Eachus with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...