This simple question, however, has implications that extend well beyond the two companies involved. The outcome of these proceedings will be directly relevant to every company making or using synchronous DRAMs. Hitachi has filed a formal answer to Rambus's allegations. Hitachi does not make a particularly strong case for this position in its court filing, but I believe such a case could be made.
Contracts require an exchange of value under agreed-upon terms.
I believe this requirement was met in this case. Some standards organizations sidestep this whole question by requiring members to join a patent pool. To join the PCI Special Interest Group, for example, a company must sign a formal agreement to share any of its IP that might be required to implement PCI products. Such agreements represent substantial concessions by the original innovators, who give up their right to future royalties in order to create a larger market for the standard. These agreements are important to later adopters, who can develop standards-based products without fear of being sued later by fellow members.