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.
That's what I want to know - keynote where?
Kent,
Good luck to you too.
Suggest you skim thru this and reconsider:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/ForAttys.nsf/d07d1927bb07c86c88256d6e005ce658/4ed41e5a5972b27a8825...
smd
======================
maybe I am full of hot air.
Ralph???????Possible Nintendo keynote Thursday
============
Re: Good Golly Miss Molly
by: ralphrambo2002
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 03/21/06 05:12 pm
Msg: 927977 of 927989
Little Richard .Hey Tom hope all is well.I do not think you are overly optimistic,I think you call it as you see it and put your options where your mouth is
Nice close and you held up nicely even when the SOXX retreated
IMO there is more behind this .
Possible Nintendo keynote Thursday
Possible New CFO
Possible SOXX movement
Any one of the above and the chart looks great
fyi:
mighty_8th_board
by: smdgc 03/21/06 05:01 pm
Msg: 927968 of 927975
Thanks for posting from WSJ.
The guy (Lerner) has written re Rambus in the past.
my past post on TMF:
idiot b-school prof needs some learning from a law professor:
Josh Lerner is the Jacob H. Schiff Professor of Investment Banking at Harvard Business School
http://workingknowledge.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=5197&t=technology
this link was orig posted by daddyman2001 on ymb
"In effect, the appeals court did not dispute that Rambus tried to commit fraud, but ruled that they didn't succeed: Despite Rambus' best efforts to craft their patent claims around the elements of the standard, it was, in the court's judgment, possible to comply with the standard without infringing any of the Rambus patents. And the court ruled that, as a legal matter, there could be no fraud in this case because the JEDEC policy only required disclosure of patent applications on inventions necessary for the standard. Rambus was thus free to sue—and demand huge settlements from—rivals who took part in the JEDEC's standard setting process in good faith."
Kent-
"This is a civil trial not a criminal one. Law will play very little in the way decisions are made."
Just wondering what qualifies you to make that statement.
smd
===============
RE: AF arguing that Rambus insiders are already rich i
This is a civil trial not a criminal one. Law will play very little in the way decisions are made. It is about conduct, presence and force of will.
I once served on a civil trial as an alternate and the jury members seemed to make it out good guys vs bad guy, good lawyer vs bad lawyer, truth, justice and the law seemed to have very little to do with it.
In a civil trial unlike a criminal one, it's like you can say, 'yea I did it, but I had the right to do it and let a jury decide not the law'.
Keep in mind, anything can happen in a civil trial that may suprise you.
Us Ramboids know the rest of the story and the real truth, the jury does not. It pares to which story teller do you like rather than which story.
So, keep your fingers crossed.
Regards and good luck,
Kent
Kent-
The Rambus challenge is to stay honest in all things with the jury; else we can lose their good will.
That is why you saw Furniss doing his "rest of the story" routine and "Stone mislead you" stuff.
Jurors don't resent wealthy PEOPLE - witness Warren Buffett.
Jurors do resent wealthy jerks.
There is nothing more apple pie American than inventing something that makes you wealthy.
smd
=========
watch out for Furness, IMHO I think his basic strategy is to paint Rambus as bunch of greedy engineers with an unethical business motive
likely will occur today
smd
docrew -
thanks for putting up the reply for DE. It is excellent.
smd
If Hager (through Currin or Rockwell) is buying the daily transcript, maybe he can buy 2 and provide one to Jeff; payment to Hager for 1/2 the total cost.
I think this goes to long/leaping:
rick@fredhager.com
Just a thought.
smd
Interesting how Furniss went thru the list to demonstrate that Stone had been misleading about how many took a license.
Just wait til Stone gets to rebut Furniss:
IBM
Fujitsu
AMD
on and on
(Of course Furniss's point was about the 5 biggest mm)
smd
Cal, the brother of yusfdbk is JMKel (aka infringeon), and they have apparently arranged to get email transmission of transcripts on a daily basis. I believe Jim Rockwell too has the transcipts, judging from the Hager report tonite.
I would not expect the transcripts to be shared with the free press like TDOX or Mark, but I could be wrong on that.
Regards,
smd
PS - again, good luck w/ your procedure.
===========================================
Let's not get into a witch hunt.
I would like to believe everyone's innocent until proven otherwise. Finger pointing does no good.
The problem is that a lawyer overheard a discussion regarding this case that may have been within hearing distance of a juror. The whole thing sounds rather subjective. It could just as well be that guys were bad-mouthing the Hynix performance which the Hynix guy took offense to. What better way to put a lid on such discussions than to inform Whyte that it could have been heard by a juror.
Anyways, everybody has been put on notice. No need to further harp on the issue.
This caught my eye:
In any case, irrespective of any attempts by Hynix, or Stuart Steele for that matter, to have the LTL reporters removed from the Trial, we will now have access to the transcripts each day, so we will not be left out of the loop.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687909&tid=rmbs&sid=468....
Is that correct? Will the transcripts be posted daily?
That's great if true. Put the Free Press out of business. Ha.
MY POST ON TMF IS BELOW
smd
SJS says 4 LTLs well-known on the ymb were the ones discussing the case w/in earshot of the jury.
I don't know who the 4 are, or if they post on this MF board.
I don't know if SJS's partner actually observed this or got a report of it.
I don't care if it is an exaggeration by someone on the Rambus side or the Hynix side, or if it was an imagined event.
I don't care HOW it was that SJS communicated this situation - he has every right to be stern and angry JUST LIKE ALL LONGS DO.
I can think of at least 2 yak-a-holics who attended the trial, are extremely frequent posters on the ymb, and who - - based on the personalities I have observed over time - - would deny, deny, deny being among the culprits. Neither of them has shown evidence of being a stand-up guy who admits error.
My view is that the culprits should AT LEAST SAY "It might have been me, and I assure all I will never jeopardize the trial from here on out."
zonz
I stand by # 9132
Furniss HAS TO say what his client insists he say - the story of Rambus is the story of an overly aggressive, arrogant bunch of evil nerds.
First they took technology that every one of the REAL EXPERTS involved in the memory business for years and years already knew, and they made the RDRAM cocktail design to make $ through an hegemonous alliance with Intel, then they pulled their deception routine thru JEDEC.
# 9132:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=10202677
smd
OK - what are the thoughts on "comments w/in earshot of the jury"???
A Hynix ploy - for what possible real advantage?
If it really happened, who was the dummy?
smd
=================
Hayes Stagner is my partner and he is attending the Rambus trial.
Stuart Steele
Hayes Stagner says: To All Rambus Investors:
I am a Rambus long who has been involved since 1999. I have attended a number of court proceedings in Virginia, Delaware, California and Washington, DC.
At the very start of this JURY trial, John Danforth, in his usual polite manner, asked that all Rambus investors be fastidious in not talking about the case, in any way, at any time, in or around the court. A few investors (AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) have chosen to ignore not only Mr. Danforth's request, but several mentions by myself and others also in attendance.
At the close of Thursday's proceedings, Mr. Furniss, who represents Hynix, rose to tell Judge Whyte that “some members of the public” (Rambus investors are essentially the only ones there except lawyers, members of the press and analysts) had been overheard by Hynix lawyers talking about the case in the presence of Jurors. He asked that it be taken note of that this could be a very problematic situation that could cost both sides a great deal of money if the trial is tainted in any way. Our Mr. Stone chimed in fully supporting what Mr. Furniss said. Judge Whyte then said a few words himself about the importance of respecting the legal process.
I cannot fully describe, without using multiple expletives which might offend our more gentile readers how angry and embarrassed I am that we Rambus investors were admonished for our conduct in and around the court in San Jose. It is ESPECIALLY outrageous that it had to come from any SOB representing Hynix.
Let me share a few thoughts with some Rambus investors (AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE).
1. This trial is about Judge Whyte, the jury and Rambus. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!
2. A repeat of this irresponsible behavior might even result in our being excluded from the court room.
3. We didn't come to this trial to listen to you. We came to listen and understand these critical proceedings.
4. There are many millions of dollars at stake for Rambus and therefore for us, the investors. Anything that might prejudice us or impede Mr. Stones work is outrageous.
5. After all we have been through; we should feel privileged to be before a brilliant, fair and honest judge. It is an insult to this fine and decent man not to respect his requests and to honor his court by acting in any way that would interfere with him perusing a just end to this trial.
I personally have a great deal of money invested in this company and some have a great deal more.
I ask all of you to support me in demanding that certain Rambus investors (AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) either refrain from discussing the case in or around the court or get the hell out and go home.
Thank you.
Hayes Stagner
PS3 delay could derail high definition agenda
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/16/sony_ps3_delay_multiple_impacts/
Playstation 3 delay could derail high definition agenda
By Scott M. Fulton, III
Published Thursday 16th March 2006 21:23 GMT
Tokyo (Japan) - It was a brave gesture for Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi to make, in announcing before a major press conference that one of his company's most anticipated and important new products, the PlayStation 3 game console, would be delayed from the spring release that consumers and the press were told to expect, until this November at the earliest. While a firm release date had never been announced until yesterday, and Kutaragi's announcement merely made official the comments of his own CEO one week earlier, still, he had to know this delay will have implications extending far beyond whether gamers have to wait a few months longer.
PlayStation 3 has been intentionally billed as a "convergence" device for home entertainment, bringing together not only 3D gaming but high-definition movies and video, and Internet-driven interactivity. Prior to yesterday, PS3 was perceived as the premiere vehicle for an entirely new class of consumer entertainment, for which interactive gaming is just one aspect. But according to a long-time correspondent for the AV Science Forum who attended a Sony trade event in Las Vegas yesterday, while the company's stand-alone Blu-ray Disc players are also expected to see delays, they may still make it (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7315953&) into retailers' hands by August.
Granted, the various divisions of Sony have had difficulty of late in "getting the memo" - up until yesterday, its PR division flatly denied news that had been revealed by its own CEO (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/08/sony_ceo_confirms_ps3_delay/) in an interview with Variety. But if these new dates are confirmed, PlayStation 3 is no longer the premiere vehicle for Blu-ray Disc. And as a result, it may not be the convergence vehicle for digital home entertainment for November that it was propped up to be for June.
While the term of PS3's delay is just three months, that's an entire quarter of income and profitability for the various industries whose livelihoods depend not just upon PS3, but upon whatever device sets up the whole "convergence" plan. Furthermore, it's the second worst possible three months that a company could delay: not from February to May, when sales are slow anyway, but from June (or "spring") to November, up against the very beginning of the holiday sales rush. The worst possible time, of course, would have been from October to January. While trading values of shares of game producers largely rose on the NASDAQ exchange today, analysts are saying the reason is largely because the PS3 delay didn't miss the holiday season completely.
As part of Kutaragi's long-prepared statement, perhaps written way back in the day when PS3 was just around the corner, he touted his new console as presenting to consumers' homes for the first time what he called a "4D" experience, which unlike 3D gaming heretofore, was dependent more than ever upon timing. If Sony has created a new, 4D universe, then it is now finding itself its own hapless inaugural occupant.
Unless Sony's multiple schedules have yet to catch up with one another (which is a distinct possibility), the company may have chosen to shift its reliance to its conventional home electronics division, to launch Blu-ray and 1080p high-definition during the fall rather than the winter. If that's so, then some of the pressure is off of the PS3 to perform so well that whole industries ride upon its success. But even so, the game plan for home entertainment changes, in a much more drastic way than it first appears on the surface. Timing in this business is everything; and here is what the delay in PS3's timing may set forth:
* The quantity of PS3 game titles during the holiday sales period will be lesser. Had PS3 been released this spring, game and movie companies (including, ironically enough, Sony on both counts) would have had a buffer zone of sorts, for them to extend and prolong their advertising and promotional campaigns, letting them build up an audience over time, especially by perhaps staggering release dates of multiple supporting product between spring and the holidays. But a November launch narrows the window of visibility for holiday titles, forcing their promotional campaigns to bunch up against one another at the starting line of the big purchasing season. As a result, some lesser titles that could still have been profitable for software companies, may have to be delayed until after January (see "worst possible time" above), in order to make room for the blockbuster releases upon which the gaming and movie industries depend.
* The pricing and promotion plans for high-definition disc players changes. Manufacturers had openly been hoping for PS3 not only to introduce Blu-ray Disc players, but to establish the entry level price point and package for the devices...so they won't have to. Creating an entry level price point for a definitively premium product is a difficult thing, and the PS3 had been fulfilling that duty on behalf of companies such as Pioneer, representatives of which told us at CES last January (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/04/pioneer_unveils_blu-ray_players/) that they would only be focusing on the the premium end of the Blu-ray product line. With few Blu-ray players available on the market over the next few months, it's possible that studios may be compelled to delay their initial release of Blu-ray-based movie titles past the end of May, when they're currently scheduled (there are already hints of possible delays of HD DVD titles (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/14/blu-ray_hddvd_face_new_technical_issues/)). But assuming such a delay, if it were to occur, doesn't extend until November, somebody will still need to help Sony make a market out of Blu-ray Disc, specifically by ramping up production of lower-priced players. The PS3 delay creates a scheduling void that somebody besides Sony will need to help fill.
* A key portion of the itinerary for the movie production industry could be thrown into disarray. While all the major Hollywood studios have scheduled initial releases for both Blu-ray and HD DVD versions of existing movies, it is the home video release dates for new movies that, more than ever, determines the release and even the shooting schedules for both blockbuster films, particularly in the action genres, and franchise films that rely on established brands, such as James Bond and The Pink Panther. As the entertainment economy evolves, studios are starting to see more profits from home video releases than from the theatrical releases that precede them; and soon, studios may experiment with actually releasing films to video first, prior to their appearance in theaters. To that end, studios have been enticed by the possibility of releasing select films first to high-def video, then to theatres, and finally to standard DVD. Assuming PS3 sells as many units as Sony can produce, which Kutaragi predicts will be one million units per month, it will still only have built a market of under two million users, prior to January when sales are expected to seasonally decline. If that number, as many predict, still constitutes the bulk of the Blu-ray player market, then a few million viewers may not be enough for studios to justify planning "pre-premiere" high-def releases prior to Christmas. In that event, studios that are now scheduling high-def and DVD releases for separate dates, may have to settle for high-def dates no earlier than May 2007, to coincide with their roster of summer action blockbusters. For some studios, the PS3 delay may as well have been past January.
* A principal element of the PS3 value proposition is its Internet service. According to Sony's Kutaragi, a basic version of what's now being called the PlayStation Network Platform is being distributed free to PS3 users, with premium features (read: "playing games online") available presumably for a fee. This adds an entirely new ingredient to the mix, that was never considered in the context of the PlayStation 2: installation. Internet service is not only a feature of PS3 gaming, but of its AACS copy protection as well. If PS3 adheres to current AACS rules, then it must connect to the Internet separately from any other computer in the household - its connection must be dedicated. All of this makes the PS3 a service which, for most households, will require professional installation...which would be an easier service for them to procure in, say, July or September than in December.
What a difference three months can make. All this trouble for this yet-to-be-born console, and we haven't yet mentioned Microsoft's Xbox 360. Given the circumstances - with Sony coming out against certain features of AACS copy protection, with version 1.3 of the digital HDMI connector now scheduled to be ready by June at the earliest, and with Blu-ray Disc apparently not ready for prime time, Ken Kutaragi had few other options. He could have divorced PS3 from Blu-ray, perhaps saving the game console, but in so doing sending a terribly negative signal about Blu-ray at a time when Microsoft is playing with reversing its stand on HD DVD availability for Xbox 360. Alternately, delaying PS3 past December would have left the holiday season without a well-defined entry-level Blu-ray player, unless another manufacturer scrambled to fill the void in time. In this particular game, Kutaragi may just be one cool customer, skillfully playing the hand he's been dealt.
Montana2,
I guess your posting 100% drivel outdoes my "mostly drivel" doesn't it Mr. Big Shot Montana Man.
Why don't you just have a private board, posting with yourself alone all day.
Maybe, given the fat -0- contribution you make to this board, TJ can give you an assist in moving completely to your private island.
smd
=============
Yes to Yahoo. At times I read the posts by people like you who do not have a life and do nothing but hang out at message boards and post mostly drivel all day.
I find some excellent posters on ymb, and often hang out there.
Surprised to hear that an anti-intellectual does too.
smd
=============
Posted by: montana2
In reply to: lolo who wrote msg# 9109
Date:3/16/2006 4:11:11 PM
Post #of 9132
The intellectuals at Yahoo are making Cabo, Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc., plans with the orginal agreed upon $125 price target. Look out!
REALLY, REALLY, REALLY dumb:
Who cares what Rambus wants to charge if the patents are invalid!
ZONZ (smd)
Furniss' suggestions that Rambus was demanding unreasonable royalties.
===================
Nic's post:
Folks, see this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aGETh0VX1m24&refer=asia
From the press release sounds like Hynix wanted to smear Rambus as ineffective in licensing because rates are too high. Now Rambus wants to introduce evidence saying licensing was inhibited due to collusion.
So my guess is Rambus is complaining that they were barred originaly from using this evidence, and now want to use it based on Hynix's opening statement. Should be entertaining.
Da Greek
hope this helps re DDR2/GDDRx case AGAINST MICRON now before Hon. R. Whyte:
Complaint*** and Press Release ###
case C 06 - 00244
filed 1-13-06
Rambus vs Micron
***
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2006-1-13%20Complaint.pdf
---------------------
###
Rambus Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Micron
Delaware judge lifts stay permitting new case to move forward asserting additional patents on DDR2, GDDRx and other memory products
LOS ALTOS, California, United States - 1/13/2006 Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS) today announced that it has filed a new patent infringement case against Micron Technologies (NYSE:MU) following the lifting of a stay by the Delaware court. In the case filed today, Rambus asserts infringement of its patents by DDR2, GDDR2 and GDDR3 and other memory devices that are currently shipping in the marketplace.
“These are complex cases that merit coordinated decision making,” said John Danforth, senior vice president and general counsel at Rambus. “With today’s order and our new filing, we are taking steps consistent with the nature of these cases and with our efforts over the past four years to see them resolved in California. While we prefer to resolve issues outside of the courtroom, we believe we have a strong patent position, including patents that issued in the past four years that must be defended appropriately.”
Today’s filing asserts Micron memory products infringe additional features covered by Rambus patents that are incorporated into Micron’s DDR2, GDDRx and other advanced memory products. The case filed today against Micron has been described by Rambus as a case related to currently pending cases before the Honorable Ronald Whyte: Hynix v. Rambus; Rambus v. Samsung; and Rambus v. Hynix/Samsung/Nanya.
The complaint filed today is available on Rambus’ website at http://investor.rambus.com (under Litigation Update section).
from model jury instruc
note ref to USA sales:
[patent holder] should be awarded a reasonable royalty for all infringing sales for which it has not been awarded lost profits damages.
Infringement: Violation of a patent occurring when someone makes, uses or sells a patented invention, without permission of the patent holder, within the United States during the term of the patent. Infringement may be direct, by inducement, or contributory. Direct infringement is making, using or selling the patented invention without permission. Inducing infringement is intentionally causing another to directly infringe a patent. Contributory infringement is offering to sell or selling an item that is a significant part of the invention, so that the buyer directly infringes the patent. To be a contributory infringer one must know that the part being offered or sold is designed specifically for infringing the patented invention and is not a common object suitable for non-infringing uses.
5.7 REASONABLE ROYALTY – DEFINITION
A royalty is a payment made to a patent holder in exchange for rights to make, use or sell the claimed invention. A reasonable royalty is the payment that would have resulted from a
negotiation between a patent holder and the infringer taking place at the time when the infringing sales first began. In considering the nature of this negotiation, the focus is on what the expectations of the patent holder and infringer would have been had they entered into an agreement at that time and acted reasonably in their negotiations. However, you must assume that both parties believed the patent was valid and infringed. In addition, you must assume that patent holder and infringer were willing to enter into an agreement; your role is to determine what that agreement would have been. The test for damages is what royalty would have resulted from the hypothetical negotiation and not simply what either party would have preferred.
my bold - from model jury instruc
5.1 DAMAGES – BURDEN OF PROOF
I will instruct you about the measure of damages. By instructing you on damages, I am not suggesting which party should win on any issue. If you find that [alleged infringer] infringed any valid claim of the [ ] patent, you must then determine the amount of money damages to be awarded to [patent holder] to compensate it for the infringement.
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate [patent holder] for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
[Patent holder] has the burden to persuade you of the amount of its damages. You should award only those damages that [patent holder] more likely than not suffered. While [patent holder] is not required to prove its damages with mathematical precision, it must prove them with reasonable certainty. [Patent holder] is not entitled to damages that are remote or speculative.
Mtsugawa - - da man - - thank you so very much! /// smd
I cannot imagine why, at this juncture, the tectonic plates have shifted and the world anti-Rambus disinformation conspriracy would have changed its effort from the run-of-the-mill FUD and begun pursuing this highly refined FUD - - which is PREMISED on memory manufacturer liability - - BUT THAT IS WHAT infringeon IS CLAIMING.
smd
=========
WARNING! major disinformation effort
by: infringeon2003 03/15/06 11:13 pm
Msg: 922839 of 922943
To RAMBUS shareholders:
Please be very cautious about acting on any stories that you here about RAMBUS damages.
There is a major FUD campaign underway now as the trial begins in earnest.The Damages from the Hynix lawsuit will most probably be computed on the basis of worldwide sales at a rate of 3.5% for DDR SDRAM and .75% ddr SDRAM
against a royalty base of 18 billion dollars.
You are being told that the Royalty base is 4.4 billion in direct US sales and by implication that the US Royalty rates are .75 for SDRAM and 3.5% for DDR SDRAM. This leads to a total damages computation which is disconnected from reality and ridiculously low.
The truth is the Royalty rates for US sales only will be computed to be much higher than .75% for SDRAM or 3.5 % for DDR SDRAM
because the rates negotiated in 2000 were based on US patents against worldwide sales.
US sales only would have royalty rates that are
a multiple of the worldwide rates.
In addition, patents post litigation after they have been found infringed and valid command a royalty rate that is a multiple of the prelitigation royalty rate.
We do not know yet what the ratio of SDRAM sales are to DDR SDRAM sales are as it has not come out in court yet. So the average prelitigation royalty rate is not yet known.
Hynix will not be allowed to argue the Infineon Royalty rates as this has been barred by Motion in limine.
So again, I caution you not to be misled by liars and price nanipulators. Be patient as this entire matter will be revealed in court over the next few weeks.
------------------------------------------------------
Re: WARNING! major disinformation effor
by: infringeon2003 03/15/06 11:19 pm
Msg: 922851 of 922941
My estimate of Hynix royalties is based on a average number of 2% for worldwide sales.
This brings the prelitigation damages to
360 million dollars prelitigation through the end of 2005.
The post litigation damages are therefore most likely between $720,000,000 and $1,080,000,000.
The damages could be assesed even higher by the jury based on the formula used to calculate post litigation damages which is used by damages experts.
Be patient and this will come out in court...
and here we have waived enhanced damages for wilfulness, which is (I hope) unique to this case
smd
==============
not sure why people seem to be disapointed. This is the first patent trial and it concerns one company. There are other infringers out there that will sweeten the pot.
JMDO
Jeff
Nic,
I thought the Rambus/Hynix agreement (no longer in effect) provided for a 3.5% royalty
but you are correcting my thinking by reminding that it charged differently for SDRAM and DDR.
Right?
smd
============
as I mentioned, more than half of these sales are the .75% rate, so Rambus effective rate is more like (7+1.5)/2 = 4.25% even if we double everything, which is a huge supposition.
What coverage do you plan Jimmy Olson?
smd
docrew, TJ, others
FWIW -
I got the impression that JJ said 3/13:
1. finish your briefing on the 2 motions, as (a) it sounds like the all-nighters will be done on an as-needed basis by the Rambus team, and (b) no "rush-rush" or deadline modification is needed as to any deadline applicable to a MU filing
2. collaborate to "pick" a date to come back before me on the 2 motions
3. my calendar folks will make every effort to accomodate the precise date you pick
4. let me know if the picking process is not smooth.
This tells me there will be no prolonged "deliberation" by JJ on the 2 motions - - which are very much "discretion" items.
I predict victory for the bus on both motions.
smd
=================
even though he declined Rambus motion to expedite.
docrew0,
This is da biggggg artillery.
I am very impressed!
smd
========
from the link at bottom:
Harvey Kurzweil
Dewey Ballantine LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY
Education
J.D., 1969, Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, Milton Handler Prize in Trade Regulation,
Columbia Law School
A.B., 1966, cum laude,
Columbia College
Dewey Ballantine LLP
The Firm: The team gained the legal spotlight for its key role in the World Trade Center insurance case, helping to defeat Larry Silverstein in federal appeals court in 2003. At stake was whether the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers constituted one occurrence or two, which would have doubled the amount of insurance money paid. The full-service outfit has proven particularly adept in insurance matters that have spilled over to litigation. Clients appreciate the "terrific" team, which they also hire for disputes concerning antitrust, workouts, banking and other issues. One of its specialties concerns disputes linked to failed financial institutions; for example, the group represents the Resolution Trust Corporation in proceedings relating to a failed S&L. In 2003, the firm recruited Jeffrey Kessler, formerly of Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Having defended Matsushita and JVC against conspiracy claims in the US Supreme Court, Kessler provides added stature to the team's antitrust profile. He also gained fame in the sports arena as an architect of the NBA's free agency and salary cap system. His arrival was on the heels of several key departures to White & Case the previous year.
The Lawyers: Harvey Kurzweil, cochair of the litigation department, was credited with winning a crucial Second Circuit Court of Appeal ruling concerning whether the collapse of the World Trade Center was one or two occurrences. On behalf of Travelers Indemnity, he ultimately obtained a victory for the bulk of insurance carriers, by arguing that the policy's wording was sufficiently ambiguous to hand over the $7 billion issue to a jury. In this case, "he did a brilliant job" asserted a peer. His practice also comprises antitrust, IP, defamation and securities disputes.
The Clients: The MONY Group; Anheuser-Busch; Walt Disney; Unocal; Cumberland Farms; US Surgical and Flushing Federal Savings and Loan Association.
http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/us/default.asp?action=rf&rf=spe&eid=232
http://www.deweyballantine.com/attorney.cfm?u=Harvey%20Kurzweil&attorney_id=760
I like JJ VERY MUCH, and I forsee a double win for the bus on the two motions.
smd
===============
Whoops, JJ did direct RMBS about expeditiousness;
I was in error to say that MG read the judge.
He denied the motion for expedition, and then
in the next sentence told Bus that he would hear the motions together as quickly as they responded and got on his schedule.
And he did say he wanted to hear about any recalcitrance
to prompt scheduling by mikey.
So, he did offer a way to dispatch the enjoinment and transfer questions promptly and simultaneously, without formal expediency.
I think the unstated message was that his court knows how
to move quickly, without seeming unseemly or in kneejerk reaction.
I guess a 'split the baby' decision would be to enjoin in va and stay in delaware. Maybe that is OK, albeit suboptimal... I guess it would be preferable from mikey's perspective than allowing their 'diffusion' tactic to be mooted. Should be a riveting read when we get it.
Big thanks again to msaba and Docrew.
LOLo
Threejack -
gotcha, thanks.
smd
Finally you used a sorta left field reference and I actually got it.
LOL
==========
But, I'm known to be prone to visit dat famous long river in Egypt... you know de one...
LOLo
It is not too late, but I am skeptical that Rambus will pull the trigger to recuse Payne - based on what they have in the "he's biased" folder.
JMHO
smd
========
Danforth should have screamed about Judge Payne's obvious anti-Rambus bias a long time ago. Afraid it is too late again.
TJ - I am behind in my reading if this has been decided. Can you help me w/ a link?
TIA
smd
===================
Judge Jordan didn't transfer the case to Judge Whyte as Rambus requested in an earlier motion, and will hear the case himself says to me he is neutral
I agree TJ - 100%!
re: You are living...
Hey JMKel,
What's up with that response? This is a discussion board.
If you think a PE=5 is low relative to the revenue stream to be derived from the remaining life of the SDRAM/DDR patents, make your case.
As a LTL, I'm all ears.
Threejack
docrew OT - thought you might want to see this; on the motley fool site, keahou posted this re an American stock exchange stock, symbol YMI: http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/confLobby.zhtml?ticker=YM.TO&item_id=1216383
That is a facinating thought.
Disqualified due to being too highly skilled.
smd
===========
Plus, the witness has to be qualified as "ordinarily skilled in the art" and I don't think these guys qualify - I think they are way more qualified in fact.
DOE question:
recall the recent discussion about the Rambus expert's DOE opinion being inadmissible (did I get that right?)
Note these remarks today from Whyte and answer your thoughts please - why can't the inventors address the DOE issue?
example, if one of the inventors, as one skilled in the art, renders the opinion that the specification
supports the subject claims, his credibility has been placed in issue.
The opinion of an inventor is likely to carry significant weight and Hynix should not be limited in challenging the credibility of that opinion.
my view on
waiver of wilfulness vs Hynix //opinion
by: smdgc 03/10/06 12:00 pm
Msg: 919407 of 919409
I know Watz feels differently, but I have been thinking about waiver of wilfulness vs Hynix, and I think the strategy was absolutely brilliant.
= simplifies trial presentation
= jury will have an easier job
= minimizes chance of unwanted evid. coming in from Hynix
= minimizes APPEAL issues, and potentially EXPEDITES appeal
= decreases chance of a split vote at CAFC
JMHO
smd
no docrew.
I think I was just wrong on this.
smd