Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
What is this all about re Scott's buddy peddling Hynix arguments:
Re: Worth pondering . . . . . . . . . .
by: infringeon2003 12/06/05 08:02 pm
Msg: 835094 of 835191
Thanks, this is flushing them out.
Scott's buddy was peddling the Hynix arguments on IHUB. He was also sitting with the HYNIX people during their evidentiary trial when he was there.
The bashers are pretending to be the supporters.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 835090 by uapsteer
TODAY YOU SAY:
# 1 cite a case where a patent holder has been held liable merely for practicing price discrimination (in the licensing of its patent)
<<
There is no such "liabillity".
============
5 WEEKS AGO:
1st to settle
by: yern4 10/30/05 09:24 am
Msg: 818146 of 818188
was IFX. They got 0%!
Look for more of that. The courts aren't going
to allow discriminatory pricing.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 818146 by yern4
FINE, HAVE IT your way,
# 1 cite a case where a patent holder has been held liable merely for practicing price discrimination (in the licensing of its patent)
# 2 explain how the Civil Rights act comes into play.
sorry to be but minimally helpful, but the best I can suggest/figure is to call Payne's clerk and say you're planning to attend court for the Rambus/Sammy matter on 12/15 but that date doesn't seem to fit in light of Judge Payne's most recent order giving rambus until 12/21 to reply on the Rule 68 issue:
Chambers
Chief Judge James R. Spencer 804-916-2250
Judge Robert E. Payne 804-916-2260
Judge Henry E. Hudson 804-916-2290
Senior Judge Richard L. Williams 804-916-2240
Magistrate Judge Dennis W. Dohnal 804-916-2270
Magistrate Judge M. Hannah Lauck 804-916-2890
yern4,
I am confident you cannot cite a reported case that addressed such a situation and held that spoliation occurred; it's just like your unfounded claim that "courts don't allow differential pricing in patent licensing"
You have a big mouth, but you don't back it up.
========
You cannot allow it to spoil. Those tapes were allowed to spoil long after the litigation hold.
12/21 date sorta renders a 12/15 ruling improbable, no?
=========
by December 14, 2005, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. shall file its response to Rambus, Inc.'s contention that the Rule 68 offer of judgment, served on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. on November 29, 2005, divests the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Rambus, Inc. shall file its reply by December 21, 2005.
"Now Samsung's Outside Counsel steals hard cash from Rambus as well."
Rambus will get it back from Sammy in due course, LOL.
I have no idea what you are trying to say w/ that comment, or how it relates to the licensing counsel job opening I posted.
Danforth is not the current licensing counsel, he's the general counsel.
$5,846.8
million dollars in stockholders' equity
I don't see a bk filing before any judgment is entered, and I think Rambus would deem MU to be a collectible defendant.
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/doctrans/finSys_main.asp?formfilename=0001104659-05-052716&n...
TJ-
What are the MU assets? patents, business know-how, plants, real estate, airplanes, artwork, cash, receivables
What are the liabilities? corporate debt, IMP=>secured debt, payables.....and the kicker "judgments obtained by rambus and others"
By far the most important exercise is verifying the extent to which there exist claims against spcific assets by virtue of secured debt. Best example is a mortgage on a piece of real estate, but corporate level debt (typically bank debt) can also have a security interest in assets.
Comb thru the Edgar filings and see what you can find.
smd
a top legal recruiter has this
11-3-05
Rambus Inc., a leading technology company that develops and licenses semiconductor technologies, seeks a licensing attorney with at least 5 years of technology licensing experience, including significant complex patent licensing to assist with the companys licensing function. Key responsibilities include negotiating, drafting and analyzing patent licensing agreements related to semiconductors; recommending and implementing improvements to licensing and sales forms, processes and procedures and assisting in formulating licensing strategies, including interacting with senior management and patent prosecution attorneys. The ideal candidate will be a motivated self-starter with demonstrated ability to draft and negotiate complex patent licensing deals, excellent business judgment and analytical and problem solving skills. Experience with the semiconductor industry considered a plus. Top academic credentials and membership with a state Bar required. Local candidates are preferred, but relocations would be considered for exceptional candidates. Major, Lindsey & Africa has been retained on an exclusive basis to conduct this search. Interested candidates should respond to the email address below.
docrew ---- in case you can suggest a way to have octavefiddler (his post is below) get the papers, scan & upload to something like, e.g., http://www.glidedigital.com/
PC Mag: Exec Editor "One of the coolest new web tools I've seen"
InfoWeek: Glide Business Coming Soon
NYTimes: Upload, Store, Play and Share in a Few Clicks
Cnet: A very cool way to store and share your media
Mercury News: Why Didn't Anyone Think Of This Before?
==========================================
Question for USjeff et aliam
by: octavefiddler 12/05/05 05:39 pm
Msg: 834569 of 834573
The lovely postings of the actual orders, etc.,
seems to have dwindled over time.
Does this reflect the movement to PACER, and is that the way for modern lurkers to get the straight skinny? Are the pacer postings copyrighted?
I could go over to the SJ courthouse and get paper copies of interesting stuff if it would help the collective effort, but I have little/no ability to hang stuff on websites.
OF
Posted as a reply to: Msg 834541 by rtipps2
options comments?
tomonthebus
by: zonzgr8 12/03/05 12:59 pm
Msg: 833523 of 833524
Tom, I'm asking for you help.
As an investor of 30+ years, I am net in the tank on options investments, but I am not avoiding them for Rambus. I know Rambus itself is a speculative stock.
I would be interested in your views of some strikes/maturities to look at (for my IRA) to:
= be a proxy for shares
= hedge shares already owned
= be a speculation on signif spring '05 share appreciation
Where are some IV values in your opin?
BTW, as an IRA investment, I assume the wisdom of exercising options is less than a taxable acct.
TIA
smd
Posted as a reply to: Msg 833518 by tomonthebus
Different countries use/require different naming conventions for corp. entities.
Guessing -------it is a foreign subsidiary
100% correct
smd
Hope this helps:
DDR was not highlighted there in BW as an infringing design, but it should have been.
Only IFX gets DDR without royalty; they pay on the terms of the 3/05 settlement.
Sammy/Rambus license agreement is now in litigation (though this is no longer a separate case as appears in the complaint - it is consolidated.
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/RambusvsSamsungComplaint.pdf
===========================
My question is, has the claim for DDR royalty now been dropped by Rambus in some kind of deal, or if not, is this just not relevant in the context of showing that the MMs conspired against RDRAM? (Or, though I am happy for favorable media coverage -- is it just that this would have unnecessarily complicated the "analysis"??
Why is it play $
Thanks for advising of your confidence thru the "load up"
Steele says (on yahoo) he's buying more if Whyte goes our way. Now -- with today's Payne news -- I truly believe him.
Doc, YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
Say goodbye to Payne.
Rambus figured out they could offer a judgment (for atty fees) to Sammy w/o screwing themselves up later!
Sammy's case is now beyond his clutches!!!
JMHO
smd
==========
Message In Reply To:
Payne Docket 93
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-cv-00406-REP
11/30/2005 93 Notice of Rule 68, F.R.Civ.P.,Offer of Judgment by Rambus Inc. (kste, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
Sammy case can go up as a final order once payne rules.
TITLE 28
§ 1295. Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—
(1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title, except that a case involving a claim arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights, exclusive rights in mask works, or trademarks and no other claims under section 1338 (a) shall be governed by sections 1291, 1292, and 1294 of this title;
§ 1338. Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Illegitimi non carborundum is a mock-Latin aphorism jokingly taken to mean "don't let the bastards grind you down". There are many variants of the phrase, such as
* Non illegitimis carborundum.
* Illegitimi nil carborundum.
* Nil bastardo illegitimi carborundum.
* Nil bastardo carborundum.
* Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
None are correct Latin. Carborundum is not a Latin word but the brand name of a commercial abrasive originating in the 19th century (see silicon carbide article). The ending -undum suggests a Latin gerund form, but the name of the product is actually a portmanteau of carbon and corundum, the latter a Hindi word.
Illegitimi suggests illegitimate to the English speaker, or bastardo likewise, but the Latin for bastard is actually nothus. The forms with nil may be formed partly on the pattern of the genuine Latin phrase Nil desperandum.
The phrase originated during World War II. Lexicographer Eric Partridge attributes it to British army intelligence very early in the war (in the plural illegitimis). The phrase was adopted by US Army general "Vinegar" Joe Stillwell as his motto during the war.
yes he chastised Rambus for filing the Samsung suit in California as a race to venue
He'll never hear "for the record" about Sammy, and --objectively speaking-- the Sammy taint is not really relevant on the issues before Payne. (He should be aware of it and be influenced by it anyway - b/c atty fees under 285 are supposed to be for the true good guy, punishing the true bad guy.)
Pretty sure he's treating the exhibits identically to how they were treated in the IFX case.
Regards,
smd
First off didn’t Payne chastise Rambus for filing the Samsung suite in California as a race to venue and hear Rambus’s argument as to how new DOJ documents proved Bad Faith on Samsungs part? If I remember correctly the Sammy audit refusal, newly discovered DOJ doc's, Sammy wanting a better deal than Infineon and other product infringements provoked this breakdown between them.
So my question is will the new developments in the criminal RDRAM price fixing admission carry any weight in Paynes court? Obviously Samsung is “Tainted” now with a crime that invites the suggestion of contractual Bad Faith.
One other point before I hit the hay is what did you make of 11/23/2005 91 ORDER granting [85] Motion to Seal Declarations and Exhibits by Samsung Electronics Signed by Judge Robert E. Payne. Why seal these documents, how does this weigh into the DOJ, Antitrust, Whyte cases or the settlement talks?
Threejack -
yes, I'm zonzgr8
my comment on Sammy's spin - I have less knowledge by far about the history, but if Rambus has made Sammy part of the SF case, that tells me Rambus has the goods to link Sammy to the conspiracy. The cool stuff about civil conspiracy - from my post at the Fool yesterday - a link up is all that's needed, not shoulder to shoulder concerted action:
JA, your post indicates you are thinking "criminal" conspiracy. I offer the clarification quotes below from a recent article, with a good deal of editing by me.
Civil conspiracy historically has been one of several devices by which plaintiffs have attempted to hold a defendant liable for tortious acts committed by other parties. Civil conspiracy claims have been raised nationwide and have been used in cases related to antitrust, banking, civil rights, insurance, labor, securities, and numerous other substantive areas.
A civil conspiracy is an agreement together with an overt act to do an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful manner. Unfortunately, this seemingly straightforward definition is not always easy to apply to the facts of a specific case, and does not always untangle the misconceptions held by many practitioners and numerous courts regarding civil conspiracy.
Although the elements of civil conspiracies are generally a product of state law, an examination of the law in each state reveals striking similarities in the language that defines civil conspiracy as a common law-based theory. The necessary elements of civil conspiracy are: (1) an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful or tortious act (or a lawful act in an unlawful manner); (2) an overt tortious act committed in furtherance of the agreement; and (3) an injury caused by the unlaw or tortious act performed by one of the conspirators. See, e.g., 16 Am. Jur. 2d Conspiracy §50 (1998).
A claim based on civil conspiracy cannot exist independent of a viable cause of action for an underlying tort. Failure to establish proof of each element of the underlying tort should doom a conspiracy claim based on that same act. If there is an affirmative defense to the tort, there can be no action for the conspiracy. The key is to focus the court's attention to where it properly should be placed, on the underlying act, and not simply the existence of an alleged agreement.
In addition to understanding the legal definition of civil conspiracy, any reasoned consideration of this theory must differentiate conspiracy actions based in civil rather than criminal law. The key difference between the two is that in civil law, it is necessary for an overt act to be committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. In criminal law, no such act is required -- the mere agreement to do an unlawful act is the actionable offense. In an early pronouncement on this subject, Judge Learned Hand stated, “whatever may be the rule in criminal conspiracies, it is well settled that civil liability does not depend upon the confederation . . . , but upon the acts committed in realization of the common purpose.” Lewis Invisible Stitch Mach. Co. v. Columbia Blindstitch Mach. Mfg. Corp., 80 F.2d 862, 864 (2d Cir. 1936). This distinction is often overlooked by both attorneys and judges, yet the requirement of a tortious overt act as an essential element of civil conspiracy can make the difference between a successful motion to dismiss and an expensive, protracted legal battle.
civil conspiracy is attractive to plaintiffs for a number of other reasons. First and foremost is the attractive nature of this theory to jurors. We live in a society where “conspiracy theories” and sensationalism are constantly depicted in the popular media. Television dramas and movies such as... When jurors hear similar allegations at trial, their reaction is not likely to be one of immediate skepticism.
A second advantage for plaintiffs in conspiracy cases is created by the existence of trade organizations to which many manufacturers belong, industry seminars that they attend, and the growing ease at which information can be, and is, disseminated. These forums, where extensive information is exchanged among industry members, make it difficult for any manufacturer to assert ignorance of the conduct of other members of its industry. While the mere exchange of information between manufacturers alone is not enough to establish a conspiracy, it is possible that jurors might infer culpability. Moreover, the more of this type of evidence that enters the record, the greater the opportunity for plaintiff's counsel to argue to the jury that “everyone knew what was going on.”
Third, civil conspiracy provides an evidentiary advantage based on an exception to the hearsay rule. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2)(E) and its state law equivalents, the declaration or act of a co-conspirator pursuant to or in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible in evidence against another party to the conspiracy regardless of his presence or absence at the time of the declaration or act, and regardless of whether the declaration or act was by a conspirator who has been joined as a defendant in the pending action.
Fourth, a civil conspiracy claim brings the potential to extract damages from a defendant based on activity that predates that defendant's involvement in the conspiracy, if the defendant is found to have adopted the conspiracy's purpose. In jurisdictions that rely on joint-andseveral liability [e.g., California], this factor can prove very costly to a manufacturer who is found to have been involved in a conspiracy with members of its industry.
There are several procedural aspects to a civil conspiracy claim that may assist a defendant. Civil conspiracy is an intentional tort, and thus, many jurisdictions require proof that a defendant “knowingly and voluntarily participated in a common scheme to commit an unlawful or tortious act.” Many jurisdictions also enforce a “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof on the plaintiff to establish the action because it may be subject to misuse. Another procedural bar to a civil conspiracy claim may be the statute of limitations. Generally, the statute of limitations period for a conspiracy claim is widely held to be measured by the underlying tort and begins with each commission of the tort. These procedural aspects should not be overlooked by defendants, as they may dispose of a conspiracy claim at the outset of the case.
see p. 20 (top) - can Rambus supplement the record?
Payne seems to have left open the possibility in the no-transfer order, but his 11-8-05 Civil Order* forecloses the opportunity IMO
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/Order%20re%20transfer.pdf
*
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2005-11-8%20Civil%20Order.pdf
I think you are SOL.
If you want to kick it around w/ someone who might know of some creative approach, this is the best class action lawyer I know:
Much Shelist Principal Michael B. Hyman To Be Installed As President Of The Chicago Bar Association
Hyman calls for greater security and protection for judges, plans to address issues related to diversity, education, among others
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, June 23, 2005 – Michael B. Hyman, principal with Much Shelist, was installed as the 132nd president of the Chicago Bar Association (CBA) today at a luncheon at the Standard Club, 320 S. Plymouth Court. Hyman, 52, has had a distinguished career as a litigator, prolific writer and leader in the U.S. legal profession.
http://www.muchshelist.com/477.htm
Tom, I'm going to give you an answer, actually it will be apparent if you answer this question: if you are a shareholder in Rambus (the corporation) from the IPO 14-May-97, AND you have stuck with your ownership, AND if the corporation has suffered financial injury b/c of wrongful acts (antitrust) of the amigoes but now recovers damages from them in an amount determined by a jury (or if Rambus willingly settles prior to a jury verdict), is it reasonable (i.e., fair and just) that you, as an individual shareholder, should have a right to pursue separately a claim for damages as well?
The answer is no. The injury was suffered by the company, and it is pursuing/ has pursued justice for the wrongful acts (antitrust) of the amigoes.
I am sorry. I'll be happy to try to answer any follow up questions in a direct way; I thought this was the best way to answer as a starting point.
NOTE: if the bad guys are the board of directors who loot a company, you as a shareholder can pursue damages, but the claim is called a "derivative action" b/c you are pursuing the claim ON BEHALF OF the company (since the board of directors is corrupt and won't sue themselves).
smd
NINTENDO (newest RMBS cust?) to unveil Revolution May '06
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/29/nintendo_may_revolution/
the biggest unknown is how much dancin' back 'n forth has been done before the mediation begins
Think about IFX settlement - took maybe 2 to 3 weeks to hammer out - but without a mediator
Sammy's "term sheet" issue list should be well known from June's broken down negotiations, but back then they were working on a 1-year "standstill" type agreement
Just to recap (am I correct/complete?) -
= (per Nuke) Nov. 30th is the date that USDOJ vs. Samsung will come before Judge Hamilton for the final plea agreement and sentencing memorandum
= Jordan is taking his cues from Whyte (incl scheduling)
www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/050810ccmosancattach.pdf
= Kramer date is Jan 12
= All the Whyte cases are on hold pending the mediations (and, we hope, his ruling on unclean hands in Hynix)
= Payne may hear argument 12-15 on the Sammy monstrosity
this joint hearing will be fascinating
As best you can tell the stay order has no effect on the tri-part case underway, correct???? (i.e., CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:00-cv-20905-RMW)
Thanks for taking the time / making the effort. smd
Xbox 360 Faults. Full Report
MS claims the norm, offers rapid service.
http://news.spong.com/detail/news.asp?prid=9336
Reports of an Xbox 360 glitch epidemic have hit the web in the past 24 hours, with Microsoft’s new console coming under fire from users angry that it has crashed or overheated.
Reports mainly centering around Project Gotham Racing 3 (a crash video of which you can see here) have complained of lock-outs and other errors, seemingly stemming from a faulty memory unit within the machine.
Other faults have included error numbers E79, E67, E74, E35 appearing on the screen, again thought to be related to RAM problems, have also been reported.
So, is there a widespread problem with the Xbox 360, or is this a mixture of expected hardware fail-rates and post-purchase regret, empowered by the global megaphone that is the Internet?
From what SPOnG has been able to gather, the amount of faulty Xbox 360 hardware shipped to the public is negligible, with much of the evidence anecdotal. Polls cropping up on the subject, which appear to show a 25% fail-rate at time of press, are quickly debunked by the originating sources as being unreliable due to people registering faulty hardware when none exists.
Microsoft reacted to the claims of faulty goods this morning. “It's a few reports of consoles here and there not working properly," said Molly O'Donnell, a spokeswoman for Microsoft's Xbox division. "It's what you would expect with a consumer electronics instrument of this complexity...par for the course.” And is she right? Well in short, yes she is.
Launch Xboxes were plagued with problems, resulting in the nickname FiXBox being awarded after it chewed up disks and suffered repeated hard disk failures. So it’s a Microsoft issue? No, of course not. The Dreamcast suffered hard reset problems at launch, the PlayStation 2 saw massive returns with a plethora of issues including disc read errors, blown circuit boards and power supply issues. Early PlayStation consoles were also unreliable, resulting in many having to stand on their side to read game discs. Sega’s Saturn also suffered crash faults in its early phase, with the recently released PSP seeing widespread pixel, disc and general manufacture quality-related returns.
Outside of gaming, look at the uproar Apple manages to cause with the portable music player fashionista up in arms every six months or so.
Microsoft outlined its returns policy for defective 360 hardware, explaining that US consumers need only to call 1-800-4myXbox or go to www.xbox.com If the problem can't be resolved via telephone right away, Microsoft will pay to ship the console overnight to a repair centre and ship it overnight back to the consumer once it's fixed, or ship a replacement. This, compared to the customer service support offered by almost every other manufacturer of cutting edge technology, is pretty impressive.
Which leads us onto the question – if you’re about to buy an Xbox 360, will it break? The simple answer is it might do, because it’s new and some do. If you want to wait six months, the problems that caused the first ones to break will likely have been sorted out. And if you do buy one in the coming days and it does break? Simply call Microsoft and they’ll sort it out. And if they don’t, scream bloody blue murder!
We’ll update you on the situation with all Xbox 360 build issues as the weeks speed by.
More news...
<< Xbox 360 in "not very sma...
Gamers Seeing Glitches in New Xbox
Console Crashes, Freezes Have Been Reported
By Mike Musgrove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 24, 2005; D01
Microsoft's Xbox 360, the much-anticipated video game system that made its debut earlier this week, is apparently experiencing some technical glitches -- screens freezing only minutes into a game, for example -- and that has left some users pretty upset.
At gamer-oriented Web sites, Xbox 360 owners have reported system crashes in games such as the space-marines-vs.-aliens title Quake 4.
One owner complained that his new console tries to read the shooter game Perfect Dark Zero as a DVD movie. Another posted a video file of the game Project Gotham Racing 3 freezing up before the player had even finished the first lap of the driving game.
Brian Crecente, who runs the game-fan site Kotaku.com, said his Xbox 360 locked up three times, causing him to lose a couple of hours' worth of progress in a Western-themed action game called Gun.
The problems with the gaming console don't appear to be widespread based on feedback from visitors to his Web site, Crecente said, but it's "enough to make me wonder."
Technical glitches are not unheard of in new-game-machine launches -- some early buyers of Sony's PlayStation Portable this spring complained that the device came with dead picture elements on the screen of the handheld game device.
Microsoft played down the number of complaints it has gotten from Xbox 360 users yesterday, saying the company has received only "a few, isolated reports" of Xbox 360 consoles with problems.
"The call rate is well below what you'd expect for a consumer electronics product of this complexity," said Microsoft spokeswoman Molly O'Donnell.
Crecente said the stakes are high for Microsoft's ambitious new console as it aspires to also be a multimedia hub for the living room, connecting wirelessly to the user's home network and a number of other digital gadgets.
"You don't expect your VCR to crash when you hit the eject button," he said.
"Once [a game console] makes the transition from your back bedroom to your living room -- you're on Broadway now. You can't have any misfires."
At Web sites devoted to the new Xbox, some owners were already expressing regret that they had spent up to $400 for the console -- not including games.
"Up until today I was pretty much an Xbox fanboy," wrote one gamer whose online moniker is Kulanose. "But after spending 6 and a half hours outside uncontrollably [shivering] for something that doesn't work right . . . they just lost me and a bunch of people I know."
Over at techno-geek Web site Slashdot, some readers were already trying to diagnose the system's problems from images that had been posted on the Web and come up with their own solutions.
"Let's rename it to crash-box," one visitor wrote.
Microsoft has said it hopes to sell 3 million units of the new game consoles in its first 90 days.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Doc, that is the literal import of the covenants, i.e., "{yo, Sammy} infringe 'em if that helps you, we {RMBS} won't sue you on 'em"
=========
The covenants-not-to-sue permit Samsung's manufacture of infringing products without having to pay Rambus royalties.
Thx. Very helpful descriptn Cal. I'd love Nic's legal POV.
Doc, I'm not sure, it was nukejohn's mention. What judge has the 2nd delaware case (i.e., not the biggie w/ jordan)?
doc, from this a.m. on yahoo:
You forgot Nov. 30th in Judge Hamilton's court. That could very well be a biggie, or it might be nothing. As usual, we'll just have to wait and see.
NJ
Cal, IMO the questions are, before you pull the trigger to buy / sell based on the Grover case
FIRST, ya gotta answer what is your confidence level that this is a problem - high, low, or?
step # 1 is Alberta's patent a RMBS "patent killer" from a technical patent standpoint
step # 2 even if it is a RMBS "patent killer" from a technical patent standpoint - does the timing/procedural posture reduce the chance of Alberta's success?
SECOND, ya gotta answer what is your confidence level that this will gum up the RMBS effort to monetize its patents - high, low, or? (this takes all kinds of factors into account, esp. Payne)