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.
Well - if we are going to throw out WAGs on stock potential, I might as well throw my hat in the ring.
Let's start with Cal's assumption of 2% royalties (ave on all flavors of RAM) - this may not be as conservative an estimate as some may think - I don't know that Rambus is looking for more than 0.75% on SDRAM and I don't believe that Rambus gets any more than 2% on RDRAM for those that signed up. Rambus may actually be quite pleased to get a blended 2% royalty rate. Anyway, I think 2% is a good place to start. Cal was kind enough to give us the entire market figure at 28 billion. Now, let's sprinkle a little reality on this rum cake - maybe Rambus captures 70% of the market (as Cal suggested - have to account for Infineon's deal and have to assume that there is one or more players that Rambus is not able to collect from). Now gross revenue looks like this 28 bill * .02 *.7 = 392 million. Operating margins over the last three years have ranged from 25-35% so I will use the midpoint at 30%. 30% of 392 is 118 million in operating profits. Let's apply the tax rate here and ignore "other income" so at a 40% tax rate, net profits will be ~70 million or 70 cents a share (assuming the obscene stock options are offset buy stock buybacks). Let's apply a more reasonable 25x multiple (which is what qcom and armhy sport on a forward looking basis) and we wind up with a stock price of 17.5.
The effects of the rum in the cake are wearing off. Remind me to sell my shares on Tuesday.
The upside of course is controller and RASER revenue - that might add a couple bucks to the valuation - they've got a 1.5 in net cash, but I think the biggest opportunity might be in multiple expansion - their costs SHOULD be mostly fixed so if they can triple their revenue (like we're predicting here), we could see operating margins swell to greater than 50% like QCOM has. For a taste of what this could look like - in the above scenario, the valuation jumps to close to 30 bucks a share.
Another piece of cake please.
Cal - does Rambus have patents/claims that do not stem from the '703 and '804 and that Whyte has ruled are infringed as a matter of SJ?
It seems to me the statute of limitations must have been reached by now...
TSC says to sell Rambus...
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/funds/investing/10257022.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_it...
It's approximately 89% overvalued ;>
Where Is The FTC Decision On Rambus??
As with all good politicians, the FTC is now about to let common sense and overwhelming evidence get in the way of their political agenda. The commission is apparently having a hard time determining which way the wind is blowing - they certainly don't want to piss into it.
My WAG
1) 20%
2) 50%
Can't verify the credibility of this poster but this is from TMF
I spoke to the Calendar Clerk of Judge Whyte's court.
Calendar Clerk: Jackie told me that the ruling in the Hynix vs Rambus case was still in submission ( meaning they were still working on it) and did not expect it to be completed until after the holidays. That is the scoop I got. FWIW
Peace
VJC
I am delighted to announce Docrew0 has agreed to serve as an iHub Rambus Board Moderator.
Does this mean there is another person authorized to give me a virtual reality spanking if I get out of line?
A: Gillette’s takeover of Duracell in 1996.
And the largest MA company to ever be acquired would be Gillette, right?
Nice of you to point that out.
I shouldn't have taken it out of context, but I happened to agree with you 100%. It's aggravating debating with someone who refuses to consider alternative scenarios. I suppose I/We could be accused of the same obstinance. However, I do believe there is more to it than just Samsung fixing prices -it was probably a combination of Intel's poor handling of it and Samsung's duplicity that lead to the downfall of RDRAM - not just the conspiracy. I will also admit that the AT suit is no sure thing - nothing is.
Anyway, I brought it up because I thought you were spot on and I thought it was funny because you are one of the classiest guys around.
From that "jackass" Elixe the Ostrich over on TMF ;>
Bob.
You keep insisting that RDRAM failed to become the dominant memory of choice for no other reason then a concerted effort by the MMs to suppress it.
You asked what evidence I needed to believe that. You obviously aren't going to respond so let's just forget it.
I doubt very much that Rambus will prevail in an AT suit. And it's amazing to me how you guys have turned on Rambus' best partner, Samsung.
I recall stkhawk's epiphany on how Samsung was spending $millions to develop 512Mb PC1200 RDRAM chips. And you've forgotten their production of dual and quad channel RDIMM solutions supporting bandwidths up to 9.6Gbytes/sec. And the collaboration of Samsung, Rambus and SiS to produce the SiSR658 dual channel and SiSR659 quad channel chipset.
Does that sound like they were conspiring to kill RDRAM?
Sounds to me like they were spending a lot of resources to save it.
-------------
Emphasis added however I cannot take credit for the "jackass" title - right TJ?
Lifted from Yahoo...
What is a crooked judge to do!
by: rambus_scores 12/05/05 11:29 pm
Msg: 834677 of 834712
First he whittles down the patents in suit to 4, allowing RMBS to offer Samsung a covenant on only those 4.
And now this!
--------->
In addition, Samsung was found in the Mosaid case to have recently spoliated vast quantities of its e-mail evidence, much of it likely relevant to the patent claims in this case, including Samsung's unclean hands defense to those claims. See Mosaid, 348 F. Supp. 2d at 338-39; Mosaid 2004 WL 2550306 at *2.It would be capricious to award Samsung its attorney fees on a finding that Rambus has committed spoliation, while simultaneously overlooking the fact that Samsung has itself engaged in vast evidentiary spoliation of its e-mail files. The Federal Circuit has made clear that in considering whether to grant Section 285 attorneys' fees, it is proper for the court to take into consideration the conduct of "both sides" rather than simply focusing on the conduct of the patentee. See Sensonics, Inc.v Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Having not been permitted discovery of Samsung's spoliation, Rambus cannot make a full factual showing of the extent of that spoliation and its resulting prejudice to Rambus in order to show the full extent of Samsung's spoliation. This is one more reason, then, that the Court should exercise its discretion not to award fees to Samsung even if the Court were to determine that this case was "exceptional."
<---------
On the day of the 3-ring circus CMC (Samsuh, Hiney, and daBus) CaseManageConference, I missed the beginning by going to the wrong courthouse. How credible am I?
Did you post your impressions of the Hynix proceedings on Yahoo - do you post on Yahoo at all?
I have to admit to having to read your posts not once, not twice, but three times before I feel that I have gotten your meaning.
I find it very interesting that Hynix didn't implement a litigation hold until 2004 and yet they are all over Rambus for a crime far less egregious - if it is a crime at all. It does bode well - I just hope Whyte issues his ruling soon (i.e. this week).
The other thing I'm wondering about is what's happening at the FTC. Rambus has asked the full commission to allow them to introduce evidence from the DOJ that would unequivocally disprove the CC's case. But now it looks like Kramer is dragging his feet and Rambus still doesn't have access. Does the commission proceed without the evidence as judge Payne would do or do they wait?
Has anyone else noticed that many of the prominent DNDN longs on this [Yahoo] board have a rich fantasy life?
[Posted as a reply to: Msg 154631 by croumagnon]
I've seen this clown's ramblings on other message boards and the only thing bigger than his ego is his ignorance.
lolo
I enjoy your perspective and the flow of your messages - do you post on Yahaoo or TMF?
Friday is one of the best days (that and days around Christmas and Thanksgiving) for MMs and other traders to attempt to manipulate and profit from psychopathic retail investors such as myself. I was not minding the store when the volume spiked and the price dropped precipitously else I might have jumped ship like many others. It's not often you see 5 million shares trade in a matter of minutes and it is not much of a stretch to assume that something real bad is coming down the pipe. It's easy to explain away our uneasiness by saying it's manipulation, but in this case, I really think it is.
An adverse ruling from Whyte and this stock would still be dropping...
The bus seems to have some major mojo behind it - it would be very surprising to find out that there aren't serious fruitful settlement discussions taking place.
I'm very anxious to see Whyte has to say on spoliation and to see Payne's next move, but there is a lot of optimisim out there. It's been almost a year since the bus has been at these levels. Wish I had the foresight to have bought some Dec 15 calls, but I'll settle for the gain on my shares.
Great article posted by SMD from Bloobmerg...
Rambus Patent Lawsuits Turn Investors Into Courtroom Groupies
Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Rambus Inc. investor Stuart J. Steele used his personal jet more than two dozen times since 2000 to visit U.S. courtrooms so he can monitor litigation that jeopardizes his $136 million stake in the company.
Steele has 8.1 million shares of Rambus, which claims to own technology used in all computer memory chips. He is one of half a dozen individual investors who travel to courthouses in Delaware, Washington, Virginia and California in an effort to predict the outcome of the disputes by listening to testimony.
Fortunes are at stake in Rambus's campaign to win royalties from the world's three largest memory chip makers. The value of Steele's investment would likely plunge should Rambus lose a case against Hynix Semiconductor Inc. that he has been following. Jim Rockwell, another investor who sits in court to track the litigation, has options on Rambus stock, which he says could surge to $300 from about $17 now should the company win.
``I didn't fly here on my plane by buying high and selling low,' said Steele, 64, during a break last month in Rambus's patent infringement lawsuit against Hynix in San Jose, California. ``You trade different people's view of the same information, both legal and technical. That's why you form all these bonds and relationships -- to have a leg up.'
Rambus has a ``greater than 50 percent chance' of winning if the judge lets the case go to trial, said Michael Cohen, director of research at San Diego, California-based Pacific American Securities, who has a `buy' rating on the stock.
The Los Altos, California-based company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to license patents it claims cover the $26 billion industry. Shares of Rambus, which doesn't manufacture chips itself, have soared as much as 30 percent after rulings or settlements in its favor.
$1.5 Billion Market Value
Rambus, which derived 83 percent of its $115.6 million in revenue in the first nine months of the year from royalties, has a market value of about $1.5 billion.
A ruling by the end of the year may determine if Rambus can continue pressing its case in San Jose against Hynix, the world's second-biggest memory-chip maker. Rambus shares rose 13 percent on Jan. 20 after U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte ruled Ichon, South Korea-based Hynix infringed some Rambus patents -- the first time a federal judge had made such a finding.
``I haven't seen anything to date that would make me believe that Rambus's patents in the Hynix case could be proven to be invalid,' said Cohen, who owns 500 Rambus shares and has sat in on discussions with the investors who follow from venue to venue.
During breaks, the Rambus watchers eat brown-bag lunches in jury rooms or find local cafes to discuss the cases. When Steele can't attend hearings, he has offered his Dassault Falcon 2000 EX to fellow investors.
Conference Calls
The group speaks by conference call several times a week, said Steele, who started his fortune in real estate. Steele's company built, owns and manages 2,000 units of government- assisted rental housing and several office buildings in New England. He sold a software business in 1996 and owns Bostonpost Technology Inc., which makes computer programs that help agents determine who qualifies for government housing.
``Whenever there's some kind of spike up or down, I get calls from half a dozen brokers,' Steele said.
Kevin Curran, 46, is another Rambus litigation junkie. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology-educated engineer who co- invented the arcade game Ms. Pac-Man has flown with Steele to San Jose to sit in on the Hynix hearings.
``Rambus's patents speak to me,' said Curran, a resident of New Hampshire. ``I can pick up the patents, I can look at the architecture of contemporary products that are sold, and I see infringement.'
David vs. Goliath
Rambus Chief Financial Officer Robert Eulau said the company's lawsuits have been an ``inhibitor' to institutional investors who focus on business strategy or financial analysis and are wary of litigation as a revenue stream.
``When a company begins to trade significantly on litigation prospects, there are some institutions not interested in that,' Eulau said. Retail investors make up a disproportionate share of the company's shareholders, Eulau said.
Hayes Stagner, a 64-year old commercial banker also from New Hampshire, said he sees Rambus as a small Silicon Valley ``David' battling global memory-making ``Goliaths.' He flew to San Jose ahead of Steele and Curran and stayed through two weeks of hearings.
``I've spent more time on this investment and this case than on any investment other than companies I've been involved with as a CEO,' Stagner said. ``I find, as I keep coming back to it, that it's more than an investment. It's an intellectual fascination.'
Rambus Fortune
Steele, who lives in New Hampshire, said he accumulated 5 million Rambus shares in the 1 1/2 years following the company's May 1997 initial public offering, when the shares ranged from a spilt-adjusted price of $3 to $22. He said he sold 2.5 million shares in 2000 near Rambus's highest price of $117.
As Rambus became embroiled in patent litigation, its shares dropped 96 percent over the next year to as low as $4.86 on Aug. 23, 2001. Steele said he started buying shares again at $30 and as low as $3. As of January, with shares in his and his family's name, Steele was the second-largest Rambus shareholder, with 8.1 million shares, according to Bloomberg data.
``As these lawsuits hit and the price dropped, I started accumulating again,' Steele said. Stagner and Curran declined to discuss the value of their investments.
Not Always Profitable
Rambus hasn't been a profitable investment for all members of the group. Rockwell, a 61-year-old retired computer programmer from Orange, Connecticut, said he sold his software company and sunk much of the money into Rambus as it approached its peak.
On March 15, 2001, Rambus shares fell 34 percent after a Web site reported that U.S. District Judge Robert Payne in Richmond, Virginia, might limit the scope of Rambus's lawsuit against German chip-maker Infineon Technologies AG.
``I attended the trial, Rambus lost, and it collapsed even more,' Rockwell said. ``I held on until about $12. I lost maybe 90 percent of my money.'
Now Rockwell said he buys only Long Term Equity Anticipation Securities, or options to buy Rambus stock in the future. If Rambus wins the Hynix case, Rockwell said, memory makers will settle their cases and sign licensing agreements resulting in Rambus earnings of up to $6 per share and a stock price of $300.
``If they ever win, I'm going to make a killing,' Rockwell said of his Rambus prospects. ``If I live long enough.'
Good for Rambus
Rambus investors like Steele, whom Eulau said he speaks to on the phone several times a year, are good for the company because they're ``passionate long-term shareholders.'
``I think they're very knowledgeable, and some of them are more technical than I am,' Eulau said. [[Not surprised by this comment]] ``They really understand the details of what's going on.'
To win in San Jose, Rambus must prevail in two phases. First, Rambus must overcome Hynix claims that it destroyed documents to prevent chipmakers' ability to defend against Rambus's patent claims. A ruling on that phase is expected by the end of the year. Should Rambus win, it must then disprove Hynix's claims that its patents are invalid.
``In California, after having spent a week at the trial, I'm convinced we have an intelligent, honest judge,' Steele said. ``If we lose here, I have nobody to blame but myself.'
The Hynix patent case is Hyundai Electronics Industries v. Rambus, No. 00cv20905, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San
Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 1, 2005 00:04 EST
_______________
I enjoyed this article very much. It's interesting to see that three very large investors in Rambus are all guys that hail from New Hampshire. Mr. Steele, if you are reading this, I live in MA which is just a short hop from NH - I could use a ride to the next court proceedings. I have a feeling your Falcon 2000 EX is a little quicker and more comfortable than my 10 year old Camry. If not a ride to the EDVA or sunny California, perhaps a lift to Cabo when the war is over??? I'd like to retract any unseemly comments I may have directed at your person.
there is the potential for the Bubba-induced Ramboid Endorphin High. Well, don't even think about that...
Reminds me of Shawshank Redemption - is it too much to ask that the likes of Appleton find themselves dropping their soap in the showers of a maximum security pen?
OT - Thanks Barbara Ann!
OT Treowth - your link does not appear to be working. I used it through Yahoo successfully, but the link on your site doesn't seem to go anywhere.
AP
Rambus Shares Jump on Samsung Disclosure
Tuesday November 29, 2:42 pm ET
Rambus Shares Up After Details From Price-Fixing Case Against Samsung Electronics Are Disclosed
NEW YORK (AP) -- Rambus Inc. shares jumped Tuesday after specific details from the Justice Department's price-fixing case against Samsung Electronics were disclosed.
Shares of Rambus were up 86 cents, or 5.4 percent, at $16.68 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq.
ADVERTISEMENT
In October, the Department of Justice announced Samsung agreed to pay a $300 million fine in the antitrust case, but details of the plea remained under wraps. Court documents made public in recent days show Samsung has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to artificially fix prices of DRAM --a type of memory used in consumer electronics -- between April 1, 1999 to June 15, 2002.
Details of the plea were first reported by the Wall Street Journal. Samsung's change of plea hearing and sentencing is scheduled for Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco division.
News of Samsung's admission was welcome to Rambus, a Los Altos, Calif.-based maker of memory interfaces, whose stock has fluctuated wildly based on its legal wranglings. The company has been embroiled for some time in a series of civil suits involving Samsung, Hynix Semiconductor Inc., of South Korea, Micron Technology Inc. and other companies, involving allegations of patent infringement and price fixing.
"We believe this is helpful to our case," Rambus General Counsel John Danforth said. "What's interesting about this, is that one, Samsung expressly admits fixing prices, and two, they admit doing it in a time frame that corresponds with our allegations."
Wall Street analysts were equally enthusiastic by the update.
"This definitely has huge ramifications for Rambus," W.R. Hambrecht analyst Daniel Amir said. "It's not like this is a licensing case or patent infringement -- it's a damages case, and there could be hundreds of millions in Rambus'favor."
Emphasis Added.
Thanks Doc - isn't this language identical to that from Infineon and Hynix? So far it hasn't gotten Rambus much out of Hynix and all it got them out of Infineon was a marginal settlement.
I'm skeptically optimistic, but not counting my chickens yet.
Thank goodness we have Congress protecting big corporations like EBAY and Micron.
Supreme Court to Hear EBay Appeal
Monday November 28, 10:43 am ET
Supreme Court Will Weigh EBay's Appeal in Case of Unpaid Licensing Fees From Online Sale
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will take a patent case involving eBay Inc. and a small Virginia business.
A federal appeals court had said that eBay's fixed-price auctions and some of its online payment methods violated a patent obtained by MercExchange in Great Falls, Va. A judge had ordered eBay to pay $29.5 million in lost licensing fees and damages.
The Supreme Court will hear eBay's appeal next spring. Meanwhile, a bill in Congress, inspired in part by this case, would make it harder for patent-holders to get court orders to stop the sale of products that potentially infringe on their patents.
The case is eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 05-130.
All Aboard - the bus is on the move. Tickets are getting more expensive by the hour - up 6.5% today in fact.
I'm hoping this means positive news coming from Whyte - we shall see soon, I think.
Cal - you're one irasible fellow. Elixe was too negative, JMKel is too positive - must be Skeptic is just about right.
If indeed JMKel/Infringeon2003 is misleading other retail investors with his interpretation of the merits of the Alberta suit, it is a shame. Like many other Rambus followers on Yahoo, I am clueless when it comes to the technical details so when someone exhibits even the slightest knowledge of electical engineering, people tend to treat their word like gospel (unless it's negative of course).
My sense was that you and Docrew (thanks for the digging, Doc) were at some level of agreement that the Alberta situation isn't one to lose sleep over. Nic had suggested that statute of limitations might come into play and that seems reasonable to me.
All that matters is how Whyte rules now - the rest is a distraction. I will be very disappointed if Whyte comes out with a wishy washy ruling - it could mean 7 more years of famine.
I truly think the AT suit has legs and that is why Danforth et al were so positive at Analyst Day and why the stock continues to move higher despite Payne and despite Alberta.
Thanks Terry - note the insider buying on the name in the last 12 months - a lot of confidence or ignorance here...
Option Buys - Click here INSIDER RANK REL BUY TRADE 144 Sales - Click here
INSIDER PATTERN B/S SELL DATE SHARES PRICE HOLDINGS DOLLARS
EIDELL RONALD GEORGE 5 5 D Buy 02/09/2005 2,100 $11.95 4,600 $25,095
EIDELL RONALD GEORGE 5 5 CE Buy 03/11/2005 1,000 $8.00 5,600 $8,000
HANSON ERICK E 0 0 CB Buy 03/11/2005 2,954 $8.27 11,114 $24,429
KAPOOR JOHN N 5 6 DO Buy 03/14/2005 68,500 $8.06 4,718,168 $552,110
FOX BERNARD A 0 0 D Buy 03/21/2005 600 $8.59 8,181 $5,154
BECKER FRANK C 0 0 CB Buy 09/23/2005 28,000 $11.91 42,613 $333,480
o = Option Related Sale Underlined text is a link to additional information. Last Closing Price 10.12
Any opinions on NEOL? TIA.
Thank you for the detailed response!
PGS or anyone else interested in TELK - I'd be curious to hear your feedback on the following post from a friend of mine...
1) ASSIST-1: survival endpt, 3rd line ovarian, telcyta mono vs
doxil...phase II data is 15% response rate in tel and 12%
historically for doxil...my bet - under 30% chance of success
2) ASSIST-2: survival endpt, 3rd line NSCLC, telycta vs
Iressa...completely meaningless regardless of outcome because Iressa
has no survival benefit...so at best is tel is another tarceva, which
is not seeing much growth in sales in 2nd/3rd nsclc markets..
3) ASSIST-3: response rate endpt, 2nd line ovarian, telcyta plus
carbo vs doxil alone...highest chance of success, but again
meaningless in the approval path because if ASSIST-1 is a bomb, odds
for the agency to let a RR surrogate endpt to go thru in light of a
negative survival study (with the same drug and similar indication)
are poor...also, one has to question why in 3rd line ovarian, the
response rate of tel mono vs doxil mono is not that big of a
difference..(phase II tel plus carbo RR was 56%...recall the doxil RR
is about 12%)...so could the real benefactor is carbo instead of tel..
telk also running trials of tel plus cisplatin in frontline
nsclc...this is another trial that ignores the landscape of nsclc
options...cisplatin now used in combo with gemzar as a
standard...along with paclitaxel and carboplatin...these two are the
gold standards...few folks use cisplatin alone these days...throw in
the avastin monkey wrench in frontline setting..people will use
pac/carbo/avas before anything else...i just dont see telcyta will
work in the frontline space with the trials onging..
this is why i label telk a DUD...LOL...900 Million mkt cap for a
refractory ovarian indication at best is a very very very very very
expensive proposition./.
jmho..au
a:=[]
``It would be unfair for Rambus, as opposed to TR Labs, to
retain the revenues derived from licensing' the patents,
Alberta-based TR Labs said in the lawsuit filed Nov. 15 in
Richmond, Virginia.
Interesting that this wasn't mentioned on Analyst Day. I have to believe that Rambus would be made aware of the fact that they were being served.
Like the rest of the market, I don't place much weight in this going anywhere.
Need to roll my Nov 15s - looks like the MMs aren't going to do me any favors.
"You have a startegic alliance to announce today?" Mr. Hughes looked momentarily surprised and said "No".
Sorry I missed that exchange. It's very disappointing to hear that on the day that Rambus is ringing the bell and on CNBC and holding an analyst day that they have nothing to announce. I'm not sure there is a point here.
The stock is still in an uptrend, but it sure would be nice to have some positive news to accelerate it.
Past years have seen Rambus conduct its Analyst Meeting with no news, and Mr. Tate go empty-handed to his CNBC interview with Mark Haynes.
I feel like this is Bizarro IHUB! Usually Threejack is the optimistic one and I'm the one saying ba-humbug!
Don't worry Threejack - Hughes will have plenty to say. I fully expect him to reiterate that Rambus has more business than it can handle (no details of course) and that Rambus doesn't need Intel payments anymore. I also expect him to say something like this:
Mark Haynes: "Would you like to add anything else, Mr Hughes?"
Harold Hughes: "Just like to give a shout out to my peeps back on the left coast. Oh - And that inbred POS from VA, who masquerades as a judge, can go fuque himself."
Mark Haynes: "Indeed!"
OT - Jeffrey - did you ever get my e-mail??? Sent it last week.
To gleen is to decipher puzzle pieces of information.
Think the spelling is glean!
Aloha - I would wait until further details from the PAD trial are announced before initiating a position here. I think there is some therapeutic effect (I think inflammation is the key to a large variety of ailments), but it remains to be seen how much.
IF Payne does not simultaneously rule that this is an exceptional case and put to paper that Rambus is Beelzebub incarnate (guilty of unclean hands), then Rambus will file an interoculary appeal and win. And then there is no CE and no delay.
Big IF though.
Good information is worth a lot.
My fear is that I'm giving out bad information. I am not a patent attorney and really have no clue what Payne can or cannot do and what collateral effect it would have. Just not feeling like the sky is falling and the stock is not reacting like the sky is falling.
So does the FTC just ignore Whyte's ruling (I'm assuming it won't be a death sentence like Payne wants)? What other suit would be affected? The Micron case where Judge Jordan has said he'll see what Whyte does? The AT suit - I don't think so. Samsung v Rambus in Cali - that's Whyte and he will already have his own record - no need to rely on Payne's findings.
I'm being atypically positive here - someone spiked my drink with some heavy duty Koolaid.
Don't agree. Who is it going to delay? There are different patents at suit. Payne is not declaring the patents unenforcable because Rambus has agreed not to sue on them. If Rambus gets a finding of infringement against Hynix on different patents, what is there for the CAFC to sort out that concerns Hynix - nothing.
I don't get the negativity I'm seeing on the TMF board. Nic, Crypt, Paul, LeapofFaith, and SMD all seem to think that if Payne rules contrary to Whyte that Whyte is going to grant a stay of proceedings in the Hynix case.
Why - why would he? It will be even more transparent to Whyte than it is now that Payne is wrong if: Payne decides that this is an exceptional case, gives Rambus no opportunity to defend themselves (with discovery because this is not IFX) and goes back in time and makes a preliminary ruling for another party a final ruling for Samsung.
Whyte has declined already to give Payne full control. Why would Whyte change his mind after conducting his own spoliation trial? If Whyte rules on spoliation and then Payne decides to proceed anyway and to the contrary, why should Whyte then give Payne deference. Rambus will appeal any adverse ruling to the CAFC - what's that got to do with the Hynix trial?
I don't understand the board pessimism and lately Wall Street doesn't understand it either.
I would add one last gripe concerning some of these posters: these guys have already stated that they have no position in Rambus out of fear of Payne - that's their prerogative - but I don't want hear these Chicken Littles trying to scare other investors out of their position - you can be sure that they won't be reimbursing anybody for missed profits due to their bad calls.
Sorry for the run-on sentences.
Despite additional media requests to see the documents, Kramer sternly replied: "I can't just unseal records, and I can't give legal advice. Sealed records are sealed." Pausing, he then added, "Thank you for your interest."
This exchange strikes me as odd. My interpretation is that Kramer really does want to take the lid off, but he knows there are protocols to follow. He can't give legal advice - thank you for your interest - it seems like he's saying that he can't tell the media what to do legally to petition to see the docs, but it's almost likes he's trying to tell them something without getting into trouble.
There is a date set to revisit this. We'll see.
At the risk of repeating myself and seeming egotistic, I posted this yesterday on TMF...
I tend to be in there with the pessimists and cynics and skeptics when it comes to Rambus, but I'm not feeling the impending doom that Nic and Crypt are espousing. Granted both people are probably more intelligent and informed than me, but on a common sense level, I don't see the big deal.
Nic had predicted some time ago that Whyte would let Payne handle things in VA and would stay the Hynix proceedings pending the outcome in the circus on the east coast. Whyte chose to proceed and Whyte chose to hold two weeks of hearings in the most comprehensive trial Rambus has had yet on spoliation. First, Whyte will issue a ruling in the next few weeks - it will be a written ruling and it will be based on a thorough review of the facts of the case including backup tapes, FTC proceedings, and testimonies - stuff not included in VA. Second, it will come from a respected patent judge. Whyte passed on an easy opportunity to turn a blind and take a load off his schedule. Why do you guys think that if Payne somehow warps the law after the fact for an unrelated party that Whyte will now say - "Ok - I see the honorable judge Payne has the measure of Rambus despite the fact that I spent many weeks and many hours sorting through the whole thing and arrived at a different opinion." That doesn't make sense. I say Whyte does not grant any CE and proceeds regardless.
Let's think about this - Payne is not allowing discovery for a new trial with a new counterparty when new information has surfaced (backup tapes, guilty pleas...) and will rule on spoliation when the subject is attorney's fees that Rambus has agreed to pay. Any ninny can see that Payne will make reversible errors and I don't think Whyte will give it any merit. Judge Jordan has already shown deference to Whyte - Micron will not get any easy out from this either. I predict Whyte will continue with his trial and so will Judge Jordan - neither will wait for the CAFC to throw the book at Payne.
Payne has been neutered as far as I'm concerned.