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.
Great post from Anatural (g3q7)
uzzi....I was not there, am not a lawyer, and have no answer to
your question. But looking back at OCE and DCE, clearly the effect of
such a plaintiff / defendant switch could have devastated Rambus had
Whyte chosen rooster's view.
---------
OCE
Offensive Collateral Estoppel = when the plaintiff seeks to
foreclose the defendant from litigating an issue that the defendant
has previously litigated unsuccessfully in an action with another
party.... does not promote judicial economy...unfair to a
defendant....judges are encouraged to exercise their discretion to
prevent use of OCE.
DCE
Defensive Collateral Estoppel = when a defendant seeks to prevent a
plaintiff from asserting a claim that the plaintiff has previously
litigated and lost against another defendant.
DCE is encouraged and promoted as efficient use of court resources.
*(1)
----------
One can easily read and comprehend the above definitions with "a
cartel member" plugged in as plaintiff, and Rambus as defendant.
(IMO,RMW's view)
Or, conversely, if one re-reads the above with Rambus plugged in as
plaintiff and 'a cartel member' as defendant, one might warp and
twist out an entirely different meaning. (rooster's view..?)
----------
On page 6 of Judge Whyte's 4/22/05 order, he made clear his primary
reason for denial, was that he was not going to allow hynix's
attempt at OCE. And p.s., no, he was not going to swallow the pitch
that hynix was a defendant.....stating in no uncertain terms, that
on this issue of spoliation, hynix was the plaintiff. *(2)
If rooster is determined to rekindle confusion, I find it hard to
imagine that Hon. Judge Whyte will be amused.
With any luck, maybe he gets wind of this crowing on the eve of his
putting pen to our damages.
------------------------
*(1)
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
court=us&vol=439&invol=322
*(2)
link to order denying hynix's motion to dismiss patent claims for
unclean hands on the basis of CE...
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2005-4-25%20Order%20Denying%
20Hynix%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
OT - SMD - You are one prolific poster. You must hold the record for the most posts on every board I read - (Yahoo, TMF, here, and now on the Ramboids MB). Do you have any other investments or hobbies?
TJ - you're too kind - the least MoneyKing could have done is prefaced his messages with OT! If it looks like SPAM, smells like SPAM, and tastes like SPAM, then you shouldn't be eating it!
It sounds definitive to me, based on those minutes, that Rambus is not allowed to share the DOJ documents with the FTC or anyone. Rambus has those documents (for Hynie, Sammie, and Mickey - as in the mouse and the type of operation they run) and can use them in their AT suit but cannot share them as yet with the public or with other government agencies. However, if the FTC subpoenaed those documents, it sounds like Kramer would give it to them. Will the commission be inclined to take a peek at what their sister agency has discovered or are they concerned that reviewing the documents will make them complicit when they rule against Rambus?
The fact that the protective order was not lifted is disappointing but not devastating and it is good to know that Sammie must hand over everything as well which of course bolsters their AT suit. (subject to appeal)
What Rambus received back (as the motion to strike/seal by Mickey and Hynie was denied as moot) was their own discovery thus far which is not as comprehensive as the DOJs. That discovery is Rambus' and Rambus is free to use it as it pleases (my non-legal opinion). I think the backbone of what Rambus has, that they could share, is the same information that they launched their AT suit to begin with.
OT sorta on NTP - I feel their pain!
Judge Hears Arguments in Blackberry Case
Friday February 24, 11:19 am ET
By Stephanie Stoughton, AP Business Writer
Judge Hears NTP Arguments in Claim Against U.S. BlackBerry Service
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Patent-holding company NTP Inc. on Friday asked a judge to award it $126 million in damages and issue an injunction against the maker of the popular BlackBerry wireless e-mail service for violating its patents.
ADVERTISEMENT
The damages would be in addition to royalties NTP is seeking from Canadian company Research In Motion Ltd., maker of the BlackBerry.
NTP completed its presentation before U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer and was to be followed by attorneys for RIM.
It was not clear whether Spencer would rule Friday.
RIM has argued against the injunction, noting that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is poised to reject all of NTP's patents. The agency this week rejected the first of five patents closely tied to the court case.
Spencer previously had said he was unwilling to delay his proceedings while awaiting final word from the agency. But the speedier moves from the patent office have some attorneys wondering whether Spencer will be swayed.
"I really feel it's too close to call," said Stephen Maebius, a Washington patent attorney not involved in the case. "I can really see it going both ways."
First, some critical news for BlackBerry fans: Those screens aren't expected to go dark. Analysts have said that Waterloo, Ontario-based RIM could still settle at the last minute for as much as $1 billion. And, under the threat of an injunction on U.S. BlackBerry sales and service, RIM has said it would introduce new software that would not violate NTP's patents.
How well that software works is another question. Because RIM has released few details, analysts and some companies are concerned.
NTP, based in Arlington, sued in 2001, and a year later, a federal jury agreed that RIM had infringed on the smaller firm's patents. The jury awarded NTP 5.7 percent of U.S. BlackBerry sales -- a rate that Spencer later boosted to 8.55 percent.
Spencer first issued an injunction in 2003 but held off on its enforcement during RIM's appeals. After those efforts largely failed, the case returned to Spencer. It is unclear whether he will rule from the bench Friday.
On Thursday, there were several court filings from businesses concerned about any injunction.
Ascension Health, which owns dozens of hospitals, said it was worried about the potential health consequences. Its physicians and administrator rely heavily on BlackBerry devices, the St. Louis nonprofit said.
Science Applications International Corp., a research and engineering firm based in San Diego, said there would be national security implications if communications between the company and its government customers were impacted.
"NTP apparently is laboring under the mistaken belief that such an injunction enforced against SAIC would not involve national defense, national security, homeland security or public interest concerns," the company wrote. "These assumptions are flat wrong."
NTP has asked Spencer for a permanent injunction. The company has previously noted that RIM users have plenty of alternatives, and that exemptions would be granted to government and emergency workers. The Justice Department, however, is expected to appear in court to express its concerns.
In a recent court filing, NTP said the injunction would end widespread infringement of its patents by RIM and its corporate customers. "RIM must simply turn those accounts off in the same fashion as when a customer fails to pay its bill," it said.
The EE Times article stands in stark contrast to this from Bloomberg...
By Joel Rosenblatt
Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Rambus Inc., a designer of high-
speed memory chips, won a ruling requiring Samsung Electronics
Co. to turn over documents from a U.S. Department of Justice
price-fixing investigation.
Rambus seeks the documents for a lawsuit in San Francisco
claiming Samsung, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Micron Technology
Inc. conspired to fix prices and keep Rambus out of the memory
chip market. The documents come from a Justice Department
investigation in which Samsung agreed to pay $300 million to
settle price fixing claims.
Shares of Rambus rose 13 percent today after an analyst
said the Los Altos, California-based company might win a
favorable ruling. Rambus wants to use evidence from the
government's case to demonstrate how chipmakers conspired to
reduce the price of their dynamic random access memory, or DRAM,
to make Rambus-designed chips artificially more expensive.
``I'm going to order all the documents produced, period,''Judge Richard Kramer in San Francisco said at a hearing today.
Samsung must turn over requests ``reasonably directed at
documents dealing with the idea of anti-competitive behavior by
some or all of the defendants.''
Gary L. Halling, a lawyer for Suwon, South Korea-based
Samsung, and Chris Goodhart, a U.S. spokeswoman for the company,
declined to comment after the hearing.
`Huge Victory'
``This is a huge victory for Rambus,'' said Joseph
Cotchett, a lawyer for Rambus. He said Samsung is likely to
appeal the ruling.
As part its settlement with the Justice Department, Samsung
admitted that it conspired to fix prices of DRAM.
Pending a probable appeal by Samsung, the ruling means
Rambus can use documents from the case, which resulted in the
second-largest criminal antitrust fine in U.S. history, to
buttress its antitrust claims in the California case.
Kramer denied a separate motion by Samsung to seal evidence
produced by Rambus in the lawsuit. The judge declined to releasethe documents, saying Rambus would need to file a separate
motion to make the documents public.
Micron E-Mails
The documents in Samsung's request are e-mails Micron
turned over to the Justice Department in the price-fixing probe,
Rambus General Counsel John Danforth said in an interview. The
messages pertain to ``Samsung and their role in the
conspiracy,'' Danforth said, declining to describe their
contents in further detail.
Kramer returned the documents to Rambus without making them
part of the case. Cotchett said the company would attempt to
make them public through another filing within 60 days.
The shares of Rambus rose $3.79, or 13 percent, to $32.05
in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading today. Daniel Amir, an
analyst at WR Hambrecht & Co., wrote that Kramer might release
the documents today.
Separately, Micron, the largest U.S. maker of computer
memory chips, said in a statement, that it filed a new lawsuit
against Rambus in Italy. The company also filed a lawsuitagainst Rambus yesterday in Richmond, Virginia.
Micron spokesman Dan Francisco declined to comment on
today's rulings. He said the lawsuits it filed this week
demonstrate Rambus's ``illegal activities designed to injure
Micron.''
Rambus has engaged in a ``pattern of destruction of
evidence, and false testimony designed to mislead courts and
Micron'' to ``extract unjust patent licensing fees or damages.''
The Rambus antitrust lawsuit is Rambus Inc. v. Micron
Technology Inc., 04-431105, San Francisco County Superior Court.
Hey Docrew0 - what's more terrifying - jumping out of a plane or investing in Rambus?
02/23/2006 129 ORDER that the transcript and the exhibits in the spoliation and unclean hands hearing held in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. shall be made a part of the record on the exceptional case issue in this action.
Hmmm - this strikes me oddly. My guess is that Payne is trying to find a way to reduce the chances of being overturned on appeal after he rules against Rambus. By ordering that part of the Hynix proceedings be allowed in his courtroom, Payne can pretend that he is attempting to be even-handed. Payne will issue an order declaring all Rambus patents invalid due to spoliation and will cite the fact that he played fair by considering all the evidence. Just my hunch.
More...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
In addition, the court does not find justification for an interlocutory appeal. The court
recognizes that it reached a different conclusion than Judge Payne rendered in the Infineon
litigation and that this difference may result in some unfair disparity between licensing costs
of Infineon and those of other DRAM manufacturers. However, that is not a basis for an
interlocutory appeal. Hynix’s disagreement appears, in reality, to be with this court’s
Findings of Fact and how it applied those facts to the applicable legal standards, rather
than with the actual legal standards. It does not appear that there are substantial grounds
for a difference of opinion as to the legal standards applicable to an unclean hands
defense. The motion for an interlocutory appeal is denied.
Sounds to me like Whyte is a little ticked! Maybe getting treble damages for willful infringement isn't that far-fetched.
From that order...
22
23
24
25
26
27
Hynix in its brief sounds the dire warning:
This [court’s] decision sets a precedent disastrous to the integrity of the
judicial process, the standards of the legal profession, and the fair
adjudication of patent cases. It amounts to an invitation - if not a mandate -
for patent holders to destroy compromising evidence as a part of their
preparation to assert patent claims against unsuspecting targets, and it
maximizes the risk of erroneous decisions.
Hynix Brief in Support of Motion for New Trial p.1:4-10. The court’s decision provides no
basis for such hyperbole.
Emphasis added.
Are you in SJ today?
Do you know the way?
I bet Burt Bacharach knows the way!
"Quid pro quo"
Not sure I have any quid to offer for your quo, but I would very much appreciate inclusion on the "free-press" e-mail list.
will.skeptic@gmail.com
samsung already controls 40%
Samsung controls 29%.
I can envision a not-so-pretty scenario where Samsung decides to buy the IFX DRAM business with the primary motivation of gaining pricing power. When you have 45% of the market, it gives you some leverage. The icing on the cake would be that Samsung would avoid the AT suit and get a dirt cheap rate on Rambus patents for a period of forever (current and future patents).
Infineon has about a 15% market share - Samsung has about twice that. Infineon is paying Rambus 23.4 million a year for two years. So Sammie would pay Rambus about 46.8 million for two years or 93.6 million in total. According to the IFX agreement, Rambus has two years to enter into licensing agreements with "certain other" DRAM MMs to get an additional 100 million. With the delay tactics that the MMs can employ, I don't see that happening for Rambus. If Rambus was able to settle or win damages against Sammie that resulted in just a 2.5% blended royalty rate, you would expect revenues of 180 million a year for a period of probably 5 years for total revenue of 900 million. Compare that to the 93.6 million Rambus would probably get if Sammie buys IFX.
The day Samsung announced their intention to buy the IFX DRAM business is the day I get off the bus.
Do people still believe Danforth has earned his millions? Rambus had enough cash to continue the fight against Infineon and take their case to an appeals court where they would have had a decent chance of getting Bobby overturned and possibly removed from the case. No use crying over spilt milk, but they should have disclosed this VERY material information when the settlement (i.e. raping) was announced.
From the Rambus 10k An acquisition of all of Infineon's DRAM operations could make it more difficult for us to obtain royalty rates we believe are appropriate and could reduce the number of companies in our antitrust litigation
Is this why everyone loves John Danforth so much? Had you been a fly on the wall at these settlement negotiations, this is what you might have heard...
RMBS to IFX - "We'd like to settle - Judge Payne of McGuire Woods has us by the balls."
IFX to RMBS - "Sure - we'll settle - these are the terms - you drop all lawsuits against us especially the AT suit because we have already admitted to fixing the price of RDRAM and you give us access to all your current patents for a period of forever."
RMBS to IFX - "And what do we get?"
IFX to RMBS - "We will pay you a trifling to keep your shareholders happy long enough for the executives to exercise some options. We will also give you access to our patent portfolio which you will never use. However, should we sell our business like we have been planning to do, the acquirer will get the same deal."
RMBS to IFX - "So basically you want us to give away the farm?"
IFX to RMBS - "Yes"
RMBS to IFX - "You got a deal!"
Oops - upon reflection, I was referring to door number two.
Door number one is the 6.3% figure I quoted.
Did their overall (net after increases and decreases) holdings actually increase by a factor of 1017/1000 ?
You are right LOLo - I should have specified - the above case is what I was ambiguously referring too.
Institutions actually increased their holdings by 6.3% but rose only by 1.7 as a percent of total shares outstanding. That make sense?
Still don't think it's all that impressive.
One thing to pay attention to in tomonthebus' data presentation is that he notes that insiders + institutions went form 43% ownership of outstanding shares to 47% ownership of outstanding shares. I've just shown that institutions are responsbile for 1.7% of that total ownership increase so that implies that the other 2.3% increase is coming from insiders. Now, I think we are all well aware that the insiders don't purchase shares so I'm kind of curious how their ownership grew???
According to Cal's link, institutional holdings increased by 1.7 mill shares during the period (not sure what that period is because it doesn't seem to specify). Since the beginning of this year, insiders have exercised 1.35 mill shares. Not that inspiring. Institutions increasing their stake by a net 1.7% is nothing to get too excited about, and I would characterize the options exercising as more than a pittance.
Does anyone have a good link or site they use to track institutional ownership over time?
BTW - there is one piece of interesting news in the institutional figures: It appears D.E. Shaw has more than doubled their stake in the bus. They are one of the biggest hedge funds in the world - that's a decent endorsement.
Very interesting - Harold Hughes is either very comfortable with Rambus' patent position or he is a blustering fool. We shall soon see. PoorBloke from TMF mentioned that his first-hand opinion of Harold (from his days at Intel) was that he couldn't run a faucet (or some such).
It appears that Rambus has patents that cover graphics chips, PCI, controllers, DRAM, Flash, and now mobile phones. Soon we will find out that Rambus actually has patents covering Windows operating systems. I hope negotiations for mobile phone royalties from Samsung go better than the DRAM negotiations.
JMKEL / Mutsgawa / Nic / LOLo
Will any of you be attending tomorrow's proceedings? - looks to be an action-filled day and one with some some relevance.
I am much more interested in Rambus extracting their ounce of flesh
Damn - meant pound of flesh. Maybe Rambus gets 2.5% on past damages but then says we want 5% going forward.
Cal - I miss your "discussions" with Elixe on XDR and its merits - would you care to comment on his post from TMF?
Samsung claims fastest Graphic memory chip
Samsung Electronics today claimed that it has developed the world's fastest graphics memory – a GDDR4 graphics DRAM chip with much faster processing than an earlier version that Samsung prototyped only four months ago.
Designed with 80nm process technology, the device has a 12.8GB/sec processing speed, 30% faster than the company's previous prototype, which allows it to transfer the equivalent of up to six DVD-quality movies every second. The 512Mbit GDDR4 graphics DRAM comes with 32 input/output pins, each of which transfers data at 3.2Gbit/sec. In October, Samsung completed samples of a 256Mbit GDDR4 that processed video (and accompanying audio) at 10GB per second.
Note that the data rate is the same as XDR3.2, but the device bandwidth is double XDR3.2 x16-bits.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060214PR206.html
JMO
but why wouldnt Rambus be able to set their own royalty rate going forward
I think that's the key here. I would like to see Rambus win on a majority of the claims they are bringing in front of a jury, but the fact remains that infringement has already been determined. The upside of a jury verdict is that the chances of an appeals court overturning are substantially reduced. A likely scenario is that Rambus emerges from the trial with a mix of 15 to 30 claims that Hynix is found to infringe (between the jury and the summary judgments). I'm not sure what that's worth, but I wonder why someone would think that Hynix should pay less than they had proferred to pay to begin with - i.e. 2.5%. Was this agreement based on Hynix's understanding that they infringed on 50-100 claims? I doubt it. Why should Hynix pay less after THEY sue Rambus? But let's say that the jury thinks 2.5% is fair. I know Nic has said the threshold is high to determine willful infringement, but I think Rambus has some pretty heavy ammo. So are damages at 2.5% trebled? Boy that would make a tidy sum. And we still haven't considered possible damages from the AT case.
My initial point was that even if Rambus doesn't get 3% or 4% for past damages, they will still have a jury verdict of infringement and they will still have the ability to enjoin Hynix from producing DRAM. Maybe Hynix can develop a work around and maybe it takes them 6 months to do so and maybe they lose billions in revenue while they are developing it.
I am much more interested in Rambus extracting their ounce of flesh on the go-forward basis then on past damages.
then this board seems full of nit pickers lately. The tension is clearly present.
Boy - you said it. I'm going to have to pull my Yahoo waders out of the closet. At least Yahoo has a rec system so you can filter out some of the mudslinging. People have a lot of money riding on this - it's fraying nerves. Good luck to us all.
PS: are you going to Whyte's hearing next week? These are going to be some key motions... I was thinking about it but I am concerned about the radical Yahoo element being there and doing what they do best: barking a lot, and I can't bring in my can of mace to the courtroom LOL
Well - if Calbiker sits next to you, you shouldn't have to worry about those Yahoos. You just have to worry about Calbiker! ;>
I hope the free press does attend - Cal did a great job last time.
LOLo - Most of what you wrote cannot penetrate the thick layers of sediment surrounding my little brain, but I think I get the most important part of your message which is for Rambus to keep it simple for the jury. Most of these guys will probably be knuckleheads like me and if you make it too technical, they will tune out. They will most likely grasp on to the pieces they understand which tend to be the more emotional side of the proceedings. The "watch and wait" and "Rambus spoliated" type accusations - not that Hynix will necessarily be allowed to repeat Desmaris' star performance. The key is that Rambus needs that jury verdict in their favor - take your strongest points (patent claims) to trial and don't overwhelm the audience.
e.g., apparently Skep gets +1 Year on question 7 of the 'quiz';
I prefer to laugh at others.
I come up with 78.5 (I get the half cause of the inches over 5'8" thing). The two or more daughters is saving me although most days I feel like they're trying to send me to the grave early. :> As is Rambus, now that I think about it.
I would like to dispell a few myths
I would like to misspell a few words while I'm at it.
I would like to dispell a few myths that have cropped up recently concerning my beloved Bob. First, Bob joined Rambus in May 2001 so his stint was just under 5 years - not 2 years. And according to data which I will post in, he only exercised 14.2 million worth of options in that time. The poor guy was only making 480k a year salary and who knows - perhaps his bonus was a meager 50% of his salary. So for all the work he did, he probably only made about 17.8 million during his stay - less than 4 mill a year. That's cheap for an all-star like Bob. Think of all the sell-side analyst coverage Bob garnered for Rambus! And let me say that there is no substantiation to the rumor that Bob and Miss Laura Stark were having a sordid affair.
My guess is that Bob was sick of clowns like me giving him a hard time - was sick of the spotlight and the microscope he was being put under. In addition, I think Harry (Mr. Hughes) didn't think Bob was actually that great of a CFO. I would like to see Harry take over the roll and have Rambus hire a real star at the top - someone like Steve Jobs. Harry impresses me as more of a number cruncher than a leader.
Switching topics - there was a blurb posted on Yahoo and TMF about the FTC's report to Congress and they indicated that a decision in the Rambus case was forthcoming. Forthcoming to me implies a short time-frame but they still haven't ruled on the motion to reopen - I can see this thing dragging on for at least another 6 months.
Anyway, here's the data on Bob
RANK BUY TRADE Search for Insiders
INSIDER SYMBOL B/S REL SELL DATE SHARES PRICE HOLDINGS DOLLARS
EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 VP Sell 7/18/2003 3,000 $18.93 0 $56,790
o EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 7/21/2003 30,000 $18.61 8,221 $558,300
o EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 10/21/2003 30,000 $25.49 8,221 $764,700
o EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 2/3/2004 1,592 $30.01 14,128 $47,775
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 2/3/2004 10,000 $30.01 14,128 $300,100
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 3/2/2004 10,000 $32.23 14,128 $322,300
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 4/2/2004 10,000 $28.46 14,128 $284,600
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 5/4/2004 11,870 $20.00 15,656 $237,400
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 11/16/2004 60,000 $20.00 15,960 $1,200,000
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 12/2/2004 10,000 $24.34 15,960 $243,400
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 1/4/2005 10,000 $21.66 15,960 $216,600
o EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 1/9/2006 45,000 $22.01 17,216 $990,450
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 1/23/2006 211,713 $30.57 17,216 $6,471,550
op EULAU ROBERT K RMBS 0 6 CF Sell 2/2/2006 93,287 $27.25 17,216 $2,542,070
o = Option Related $14,236,035
p = 10b5-1 Planned Trade (starting 9/03)
Form4s
Eulau resigns.
Rambus Announces Resignation of Chief Financial Officer
This is horrible - who am I going to take pot shots at? No more bumbling Bob references? Hmmm - here's my chance to get on the gravy train - I did once profess that I could perform the job as well as Bob the Boob...
Solid reasoning from one of my favorite posters over on TMF...
NJ:
<Kenny,
I may be wrong about this, but I believe it is Rambus who is now playing hardball (and well they should after what they have been put through). I seriously doubt Hynix has a "low ball offer" on the table.>
This is my view as well. I think for Rambus to succeed in extracting different deals from the infringers they need more than sj on infringement. they need a jury verdict that an appeals court cannot disregard so I think we need a trial at which Rambus prevails on infringement based on disputed facts to which an appeals court must give some weight.
My feeling is that with the scope of the pretrial motions just filed we might see a delay in the trial as JW might issue written opinions because he appears to be careful and deliberate (and slow) and not interested in having this matter sent back to him because of some minor issue he failed to address.
Nic pointed out the key ones (pretrial motions) that could impact the trial but these motions for the most part by hynix are essentially an attempt to connect the conduct and infringement phases and I think JW will not be persuaded. I seriously doubt that JW is going to let conduct issues be entered into evidence in this phase of the trial. They "watch, they amend" bull that has haunted Rambus from the start.
as you say:
<In many aspects, Rambus needs to see this case against Hynix through to it's rightful conclusion>
I would pick bones with you a little here and say that Rambus needs to see this case reach at least a trial conclusion in full. But in my mind, hynix and micron believe their best chances lie not in this phase of the trial but in the final or conduct phase wherein they can play games with whether Rambus patents are enforceable and not whether they are valid. Even the FTC "assumes" rambus has valid patents. So conclusion requires Rambus to prevail here as well. But the infringers must have a total win here: that is, they must convince JW that all of the patents Rambus has that are derived from the original 898 are not enforceable.
I don't see this as a realistic possibility given the timeline for the original filing and the timeline for the alleged misconduct by Rambus. Payne figured out how to kill the whole goose because he essentially bought into the idea of "lock in" to the rambus patents: he validated a fraud finding by a jury and held some broad discretion as to how to remedy that finding.
<We also know that in past CC's John Danforth always stated that DDR2 and DDR(x) had more of Rambus' IP, and therefore the rate would be higher.>
An astute observation if true (and he, Danforth, may well be on target here), which is why with the conduct phase of the trial at issue and the affirmative defenses that hynix has proffered, even if Rambus does not prevail completely, the defenses may not be sufficient to sustain a complete block on enforcement on all patents that flow from the 898. I suspect that hynix will have to get JW and the jury to buy the lock in theory if a jury finds for hynix.
I find it interesting that Hynix's own conduct may come into play if Rambus seeks (and they will) a finding of willful infringement and accord 3x damages as a penalty. This might well turn on how much analysis hynix did to analyze the 898 implications for the patent claims and their products. There is nothing wrongful in trying to avoid a patent issue by a design around. So what Rambus has found since VA1 and during the FTC phases of the trial may convince a jury that hynix took the risk that their products might infringe and went forward with the full knowledge of that risk. So much is filed under seal so we don't really even know the full scope of rambus discovery in the hynix case---but Rambus does and so will the jury.
The best thing that JW has done for Rambus is to separate the trial into phases thereby barring hynix from merging the conduct (impacting enforcement) and infringement questions (validity). The second best thing is imo hynix legal papers are not nearly as coherent as perhaps they could be partially because they have little to work with.
just my take and speculation. an industry wide settlement is the cure and it doesn't seem we are close on this. But as you say, Rambus is sure keeping us in the dark on this and rightly so, they would not want outline their litigaion or settlement strategy at this stage. So we are left to waiting.
best regards.
ido
Enigma License
LOS ALTOS, Calif. & SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 7, 2006--Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS - News), one of the world's premier technology licensing companies specializing in high-speed chip interfaces and Enigma Semiconductor, an emerging leader in networked communications technology, today announced that Enigma has licensed Rambus' ABP (Advanced Backplane) high-speed serial link interconnect technology for integration into Enigma's HybriCore(TM) switch architecture. The first chipset implementation of the HybriCore architecture with Rambus' ABP serial link technology is expected to sample in mid-2006.
Who are these people? It's like a riddle wrapped in mystery shrouded by ambiguity - a conundrum as it were.
BTW - Thanks for the good reading LOLo!
What's with people demanding apologies around here? Is this DramaHub? Are people getting nervous about the Bus? The game is not over.
Anyone have a TSC membership???
Figuring Out This Rambus
By Steven Smith
About this story:
I admit it. I'm fixated on Rambus. The stock doubled in a five-week period, watched the implied volatility get pumped to 120% ahead of some court rulings and its Jan. 19 earnings report; and then the stock does nothing, staying in a 4% range for five days. But the implied volatility...
and a few on Yahoo as g3q7......
Thank your for your contribution here and on Yahoo - I'm glad to see that you're still in the game. You may post seldomly but your posts are always worth reading.
2) As long as the management team makes their millions off options without doing anything illegal of unethical...they can have their money...while I take mine.
A good part of my options' rant amounts to crying over spilt milk. A substantial portion of those options were probably granted years ago when things looked very bleak and the stock was in the single digits. I can imagine Rambus was close to desperate to keep its team in place as it struggled in the courtroom. That can be forgiven and I should probably tone down my rhetoric. Now that the Bus seems to be on more solid footing and these same officers are multi-millionares, I'd like to see the spate of grants slow to a more reasonable level. Like NJ suggested, if I had options grants in the low single digits and the bus was at a 2 year high, I'd be unloading too. I think it is useful to remind management that this company is not their personal piggy-bank and hopefully we'll see some belt tightening going forward.
I agree with BBMA57 in that I'll be comfortable with mgmt making millions if I, (and y'all) as owner of the company, am given the same opportunity. I would suggest thus far that mgmt has been disproportionately rewarded.
On another note - does anyone (including JMKEL) really believe that any reasonable AT jury would award Rambus 7-9 billion dollars for RDRAM damages? It's pie in the sky and it's irresponsible. I think some need to temper their enthusiasm with a dose of reality. And people should also remember that NOTHING is a sure thing. If Rambus was guaranteed to prevail against Hynix and Sammie and Micron or if global settlements were a sure thing, the stock would already be at 60 or 80 or wherever it's going. There is still plenty of risk. If nothing else, the last few years in the courtrooms should have taught people that anything can and does happen in litigation battles. I am optimistic and looking to buy more shares, but I do not expect it to be easy or quick nor do I expect the stock to go to 100 even with global settlements. No reasonable math or valuation gets us there. But, as a disclaimer, I've been wrong before.
Ahhh - my favorite subject - Insider Option Exercises. Here is the list from the past few days...
op EULAU ROBERT K 0 6 CF Sell 01/23/2006 211,713 $30.57 17,216 $6,471,550
FARMWALD MIKE 0 0 D Sell 01/24/2006 100,000 $34.13 2,870,936 $3,413,000
o PATEL SAMIR 0 0 VP Sell 01/24/2006 88,431 $34.16 84,405 $3,020,802
o DONNELLY KEVIN 0 8 VP Sell 01/25/2006 94,000 $34.84 27,268 $3,274,960
DUNLEVIE BRUCE W 5 4 D Sell 01/25/2006 38,000 $34.91 411,492 $1,326,580
o SCHROEDER MICHAEL C 0 0 VP Sell 01/25/2006 17,500 $34.36 0 $601,300
o STARK LAURA 0 0 VP Sell 01/25/2006 63,328 $35.11 31,505 $2,223,446
op MOORING DAVID G 0 5 D Sell 01/26/2006 300,000 $34.73 580,622 $10,419,000
Notes on the above - only Bobby and David Mooring's sales are part of a 10b5-1 plan - the rest are NOT. Given that - it's a damn good question why people are selling droves - my guess is that it's because Rambus hasn't been this high in 2 years - and Oh - they want to diversify.
A few highlights from the above data: In a matter of a few weeks, insiders have exercised/sold almost 1 million shares worth almost 33 million bucks. Our fearless leader Bob did warn us that they expected shares outstanding to balloon to 110 million. Like Nuke, I wish I knew more about how this plays into the option expensing line item on the income statement, but my guess is that it aint going to be pretty.
And can someone please explain to me why Mr Eulau deserves the 7.4 million dollars worth of options he's exercised? This company shows no fiscal responsibility. I look forward to the day of global settlements so I don't have to see my money being pissed away by mediocre management.
Same goes for Laura Stark - what the hell does she do? VPs should not be compensated the way these guys are.
I'm pretty sure DY is for real - he/she has shared documents they've obtained in the past and you don't see pumping or bashing in his/her posts.
Most of the individual investors are already "all in" (myself included).
This is the part that worries me - when guys with deep pockets like Stuart and ownerofbusinees and the rest of us with medium or shallow pockets have exhausted our resources buying as many bus tickets as we can, who will take this stock to 40 and 50 and on up? Institutions? Maybe, but I'm sure they don't want to feel like they're buying at the top. Perhaps if there were global settlements, institutions that still follow Rambus (how many are there) would feel comfortable piling in. In order for there to be a short squeeze, there has to be buying pressure - they have to get nervous or get called in. There is one analyst that has an official rating on Rambus and Hambrecht isn't a top tier firm like MS or Merrill or JPM or Goldman.
I am personally not selling and I get the impression that no one that really knows this story is selling either, but who is going to buy?
OT - Cal - please follow your own advice for once and re-read what I posted. I did not once state that I hated Croaker - I said that people hate him. I don't give a crap about Croaker - I am indifferent towards him. What I don't like is the crap that comes with him and the diversion he causes. Just like now - that guy doesn't even post here and you and I are having a conversation about him. It's wasted time - for you and me and anyone else who frequents this board.
I don't hate anyone on message boards - it's not worth the emotional capital. You'll find truths from both the longs and the shorts. I don't like extremism on either front - that's when I stop paying attention and posters lose credibility to me.
This is all about making money for me and if I make some friends along the way, that's gravy (not Payne gravy but the good kind).
Now that Elixe has moved on, you can grind your axe with me if it makes you feel better. I want to respect you because I think you are a damn smart guy, but you are just too prickly. Cantankerous Cal.