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.
`The cases are now centered in the Northern District of California,'' Rambus General Counsel John Danforth said today in an interview by phone from California. ``We indicated we wanted to keep the Samsung dispute here. It's where our headquarters is and where their headquarters is.'' Samsung Semiconductor Inc. is in San Jose, California.
This quote from Danforth sure makes it sound like Payne is out of the picture - but you never know when Freddy from Elm Street will resuface to gut someone or someone's IP.
have to agree with JM- I don't see how any reasonable appeals court would opt for Payne's determinations over Whyte's (perhaps this is moot as Whyte could agree with Payne) when Payne has excluded more testimony and disallowed more discovery than he has allowed in (well - at least on Rambus' side).
If Whyte rules one way and Payne another, there is no chance (slim chance) that the CAFC does not rule with Whyte. This could add delay, but I'm very happy to know that Whyte will have given us something before Santa puts some coal (reindeer turds) in Rambus' stocking.
My third-hand sense is that Johnson's testimony was almost irrelevant especially considering Rambus was not pursuing "defense of counsel". I think Rambus' goal was to put a well-respected patent attorney (like Nic) on the stand and get them to voice their opinion on how a DRP should be instituted and verbalize what should be construed as normal. This issue is a bee's nest - Hynix has decided to whack it a few times and see what comes out. Let's hope they get stung.
BTW, remember our discussion about ISRG a few months ago? You thought it was overpriced at $65. It’s at $92!
Tells you what I know.
Cal - thanks again for your reporting - I've been meaning to ask you if you prefer the courtroom dramas to your old debates with Elixe? I have to say that although I'm patently illiterate (pun intended), I still understand more of what comes out of the courtroom than what came out of your "discussions" with Elixe.
It's a 53% premium. I would personally be disappoined as would a number of other people, but mgmt could cash in their options, open their golden parachutes and retire VERY comfortably.
Didn't this same group report this exact rumor like 3 months ago?
late last nite Nic posted on Yahoo that the Hynix motion to reconsider is very likely a non-starter
Did he say why?
TIA
but I think it is worth asking around to some experts; maybe you could report back to us.
LOL - I don't know any experts! I have enough trouble figuring out what the damn lawyers are yakking about to begin with.
Will RMBS still be a functioning company after this all ends if it ends against them?
The answer is a resounding yes - will it be a good investment - not sure. But, at 6 bucks (if it goes there), all the downside has been taken out. RDRAM, XDR, and Raser are all un-encumbered by litigation - Rambus still has contractual agreements with Toshiba (for a year at least), Renasc (spelling?) and Elpida. And Infineon is throwing a few bucks their way as well. It also has agreements with Sony, IBM, Panasonic (Matsushita) sp?), and Texas Instruments (I think for DLP TVs).
I can say that you won't see 60 bucks in this decade or possibly the next if they don't win here.
SMD - I know Nic's raised the specter of the phillip's case - are you saying you expect Whyte to change his mind on the claims construction for "device"?
Cryptscrypt and cayman from TMF had some interesting post hoc comments on the Hynix proceedings. I would post them here, but I'm not sure if they would mind.
Anyway, they got me thinking about the onus in this trial. Is the onus on Rambus or on Hynix? Did Hynix have to show a nexus - did they convincingly show that Rambus destroyed evidence that would have helped Hynix defend itself? From what I've read, Whyte was very interested in Nissly's comments on prior art - this is a nexus. If Whyte was expecting Hynix to present the smoking gun, then I'd say the odds are good for Rambus emerging almost completely unscathed.
Or maybe Whyte sees the onus on Rambus - maybe Rambus was required to show that in fact they did put the litigation hold in place at the proper juncture? If this is Whyte's focus, I'd say Rambus can expect an uphill battle.
Most likely, it is some combination of the two. I don't think any reasonable person expects Whyte to dismiss the case based on unclean hands - I'm giving this a 5% probability. On the other end, I don't expect Rambus to come out smelling like a rose - I'm only giving 10% odds that there are no sanctions and that it is a completely lopsided victory as with McGuire's ID. The gray area in the middle is the most likely outcome.
I've opined before that Whyte will give as much deference as possible to the CAFC - he wants to get this right - this is a huge case with huge implications. In the original remand from the CAFC back to Payne - Rader made noises to the effect that Rambus did nothing illegal although their ethics are questionable. McGuire kind of hinted at the same thing - they destroyed stuff, but none of it was relevant. The analogy I would use is that Hynix is claiming they found a gun and therefore Rambus must have killed somebody when in fact there was no crime committed in the first place. This brings me back to the CAFC and Rambus' failed petition for Writ of Mandamus on ACP piercing - although it was not granted, one of the judges dissented saying that piercing ACP had huge implications for all companies that institute a document retention policy.
I know the issues are not perfectly related, but I hope Stone et. al remind Whyte in their closing arguments of the CAFC's comment. Whyte's record and trial is the most comprehensive that Rambus has had to date - it will be pivotal. I ultimately expect Whyte to look first to the CAFC and then secondly to McGuire when crafting his decision - what did they say and why? What did Rambus destroy that was relevant?
Hynie's focus was on anticipation of litigation because they have no evidence that they were disadvantaged by anything Rambus did.
The best news for me at least is that I truly expect this to provide some resolution. Judge Jordan is looking to Whyte - the FTC is watching (per Calbiker's comments), Samsung will get a sense of what awaits them, and I think even that dolt in VA is waiting to see what happens. Major sanctions will convice me to get off the bus for a LOOONNNNGGGG time and a clean sweep means back up the truck. Like it or not DDRAM and its ilk will be around for a long time and will continue to represent a majority of the memory that is manufactured and sold. Rambus will be a niche player without a win here - PCI and XDR combined will not make up for the shortfall of lost Samsung and Intel revenue.
Hughes said he planned on buying a PlayStation 3 for each of Rambus' 325 employees when the machine launches. Sony plans to launch its new gaming console next spring but has not yet set a date.
What Hughes did not say is that he'll be expensing the charge to the company.
I guess this article is confirmation that Rambus will be receiving 40 million less a year after next year. More business than they can manage, huh? Sounds like a lot of bravado. It's not clear to me that Rambus has any solid plans for filling the revenue void.
I find it hard to imagine that complaint counsel for the FTC would show up at a real trial - they get all their "research" directly from Micron and Hynix.
Well - the proceedings begin at 1:30 - west coast time - so that means the market will be closed before anyone learns how things have shaken out. I have a feeling we'll all know what has transpired before the markets open tomorrow morning.
Does Rambus get the king size snickers bar or a rotten apple?
Judge Cramer from a superior court in San Francisco will unseal a box which holds many documents and reveal that the memory IP firm has "justice on its side".
Now I know why Rambus hired some guy named Cramer to be its head of Litigation (or whatever he is)
Is anyone attending the Hynix proceedings today (free-press that is)?
Jeff or Cal or JMKel - have you guys met any other Ramboids or anyone from the Rambus team (i.e. Danforth or Tate)? Cal - did you hook up with Stuart Steele - did he buy you lunch or is he saving his money to buy another million shares of the Bus? Sounds like a lot of fun except for the tedious trial part of it.
Speaking of options - JMKel - do you think Whyte will have issued a ruling on spoliation/unclean hands by Dec option expiration? The most money I ever made trading Rambus was the day McGuire issued his ID - I managed to piss most of it away buying more calls thinking that that was a watershed event. However, I did expect the movement to be more than it was (~30% on the day) and I'm concerned again that the "ruling" will generate only marginal interest and price movement. If we get a 30% move again, we might see 16 bucks or so. No way we're seeing 20 or better IMO so I'm not going to go as high as 20 strikes even if they are cheap.
Very anxious to see what happens in the AT suit today. My guess is the stock price will indicate how Rambus fared - information surrounding this stock seems to be as "leaky" as Scooter Libby and the White House.
Many thanks - Cal and Jeff.
Thanks Calreporter!
After lunch he didn't sit next to me anymore.
Classic - I would have been rolling in the aisle if I had witnessed that exchange. Your updates are MUCH appreciated!
P.S. Delighted to see the share price up today on good volume : )
Let me be the first to regurgitate the ever-popular but always vague message board cliche - "someone knows something".
You number looks way high to me.
Be happy to e-mail you the numbers. I'll post them in here, but they'll be essentially illegible. The source is Muzea which gets its info directly from the filings. If you add up all the numbers, you'll see the 50 mill I mention.
I hope you're right about me getting ahead of things. BTW - I continue to be in awe of your level-headedness. I'd do well had I a modicum of your patience and objectivity.
MUZEA INSIDER CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC
(AGGREGATE) HISTORICAL INSIDER TRADES FOR
TATE GEOFFREY ROSS
Click the Insiders name for the DETAILED view of their trades. RANK BUY TRADE
Search for Insiders
INSIDER SYMBOL B/S REL SELL DATE
SHARES
PRICE HOLDINGS DOLLARS
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 09/20/2004 33,300
$16.59 2,966,922 $552,447
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 10/20/2004 33,300
$16.80 2,933,622 $559,440
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 11/22/2004 33,300
$21.13 2,900,322 $703,629
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 12/20/2004 33,300
$25.69 2,898,556 $855,477
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 CB Sell 01/20/2005 33,300
$20.82 2,865,256 $693,306
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 D Sell 07/20/2005 33,300
$13.32 2,665,456 $443,556
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 CB Sell 08/22/2005 33,300
$11.52 2,632,156 $383,616
p TATE GEOFFREY ROSS RMBS 0
5 CB Sell 09/20/2005 33,300
$11.47 2,598,856 $381,951
RANK BUY TRADE
Search for Insiders
INSIDER SYMBOL B/S REL SELL DATE
SHARES
PRICE HOLDINGS DOLLARS
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 08/14/1997 200,000
$16.66 4,331,156 $3,332,500
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 11/10/1997 200,000
$10.77 4,131,156 $2,154,000
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 02/02/1998 60,000
$11.19 3,909,556 $671,250
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 04/17/1998 120,000
$10.31 3,789,556 $1,236,600
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 07/17/1998 80,000
$13.78 3,705,556 $1,102,600
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 10/19/1998 80,000
$15.01 3,619,556 $1,201,000
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 04/19/1999 72,000
$15.25 3,545,556 $1,098,000
o TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 07/22/1999 47,600
$24.22 3,524,756 $1,152,872
o TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 08/04/1999 12,400
$20.50 3,524,756 $254,200
o TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 11/05/1999 76,800
$21.88 1,997,956 $1,680,000
o TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 02/02/2000 60,000
$19.31 3,435,956 $1,158,750
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 05/05/2000 40,000
$51.77 0 $2,070,600
o TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 05/08/2000 40,000
$49.13 3,353,956 $1,965,000
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 08/25/2000 100,000
$86.48 3,313,956 $8,648,000
o TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 11/29/2000 100,000
$41.76 3,639,189 $4,176,000
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 01/26/2001 100,000
$48.39 3,542,522 $4,839,000
TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 02/05/2003 80,000
$13.76 3,366,522 $1,100,800
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 10/20/2003 33,300
$25.42 3,333,222 $846,486
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 11/20/2003 33,300
$24.64 3,299,922 $820,512
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 12/22/2003 33,300
$26.49 3,266,622 $882,117
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 01/20/2004 33,300
$34.71 3,233,322 $1,155,843
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 02/20/2004 33,300
$33.66 3,200,022 $1,120,878
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 03/22/2004 33,300
$26.67 3,166,722 $888,111
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 04/20/2004 33,300
$25.07 3,133,422 $834,831
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 05/20/2004 33,300
$18.90 3,100,122 $629,370
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 06/21/2004 33,300
$15.98 3,066,822 $532,134
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 07/20/2004 33,300
$17.33 3,033,522 $577,089
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 CE Sell 08/20/2004 33,300
$13.23 3,000,222 $440,559
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 D Sell 02/22/2005 33,300
$18.15 2,831,956 $604,395
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 D Sell 03/21/2005 33,300
$16.75 2,798,656 $557,775
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 D Sell 04/20/2005 33,300
$13.53 2,765,356 $450,549
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 D Sell 05/20/2005 33,300
$15.17 2,732,056 $505,161
p TATE GEOFFREY RMBS 0
5 D Sell 06/20/2005 33,300
$14.54 2,698,756 $484,182
Calbiker - I appreciate the updates. Have you met JeffreyScott out there for some biking or any other Ramboids? I wish they'd have some legal proceedings in the Boston area - I'd love to check it out.
Rambus bought back 2MM shares over the past year
Apologize for the negativity, but the point of the buyback is to award more options to management. Until we see a victory in court, I think it's a horrible use of money and further illustrates the self-dealing in the highest echelons.
I am firm believer in pay for performance - I do not believe in entitlements. Wearing the title of CEO or chief legal counsel does not entitle one to lavish compensation.
The lack of attention to a task so pivotal to Rambus is stupefying, to me at least.
The thought of Mr. Tate on the witness stand makes me cringe.
Stupefying Indeed! Thank you Threejack for the perfect segue into my Tate Tantrum. The more I learn, the more displeased I become. The displeasure snowballs into disgust until the angst erupts into the verbal diarrhea I feel compelled to spew all over IHUB.
I take umbrage at the fact that Terrible Tate continues to dilute my stake in Rambus while enriching himself. This same man (I use the term loosely) has shown his incompetence (during depositions and on the stand) and his lack of oversight (not knowing about hundreds of backup tapes), yet remains as the COB. If it turns out that Rambus is unable to collect royalties on the myriad RAM flavors for which it has IP, Tate should not only be fired, he should be forced to return his ill-gotten gains to shareholders.
Since 1997 those ill-gotten gains in stock option exercises alone amount to almost 50 MILLION dollars in gross proceeds. (There is the exercise price and taxes to factor in so he probably only pocketed 25 million of that 50 - poor guy). He's also been collecting a very generous salary and bonus. Should Rambus' "document retention policy" prevent them from collect royalites from Sammie and Hynie and Micey, I would be all for a class-action lawsuit against Tate personally. I typically don't support class action lawsuits because the only winners in those cases are the damn blood-sucking lawyers. But, if Rambus loses against Hynix (which implies a loss in all litigation) because of Tate's incomepetence and negligence, then Tate should be held accountable and return the 25 million to the company and thank his lucky stars he was able to collect such a nice paycheck for so long.
If top management is to be paid top dollars, the buck should stop with them as well.
As I said, when you're faced with losing your shirt (short) vs losing your investment (long), you go the extra mile. Most good shorts don't have time to be posting on message boards so you won't meet them online. BTW - none of this is meant to imply that I am good at shorting stocks (I'm not), but I have met some shorts who are darn well informed.
I said “long position” intentionally because more DD is required to go long than to go short.
I couldn't disagree more with this statement for the sole reason that your potential loss is infinite, but your potential gain is 100%.
A good short (not many of them out there) will know more about a company than the CEO and won't be in business long unless he does a tremendous amount of DD.
I think a lot of people view shorting (and vehicles that employ short selling i.e. hedge funds) as evil when in fact shorting is an important part of keeping an efficient market. I'm sure the CEO of Overstock.com would agree.
My prediction (and it's worth what it costs you) is that Whyte will find that Rambus shredded documents in anticipation of litigation and did not put the litigation hold in place when they should have. I further predict, that despite this, Whyte will find that Hynix did not present a nexus or a reasonable explanation of how Hynix's defense is compromised by Rambus' actions. The net effect will be that adverse inferences can be drawn when it comes to the trial, but Rambus' actions do not nearly rise to the level where the penalty is to strip an IP company of its ability to enforce its patents.
Wow - how timely, docrew0 - thanks for keeping us apprised. I think this is great news, but what the hell do I know. It almost suggests that maybe the FTC might yet agree with the strong ID laid out by McGuire. Things are getting interesting - I see the calls I have on Rambus as the price of admission to watch a hell of a show. (sorry for the incessant cussin', but it's my way of emphasizing).
So, just guessing the FTC has switched horses mid race and is on its feet rooting hard for Judge Whyte as he turns for home. As for His Nibs, he is just a riderless nag with an empty saddle. The image of an out-of-control claimer on the back stretch trailing the action ahead fits the man perfectly. Close your eyes. Give it a try. Let's hope he doesn't spoil the fun with some stupid sprint for the wire. Last thing Rambus needs is a photo finish. But, even if he wins, the stewards will disqualify the guy, right? Hold your tickets.
Haha - like the analogy. Let's further hope that the Rambus stallion is not gelded by the Payne or that Rambus' horse doesn't break a leg on its way to the finish line - otherwise we might find ourselves invested in glue factory.
Think you're right, btw, on what the focus should be in regard to Intel. The skeptic in me says Intel is not interested in XDR. Rambus really did give away the farm to Intel and the prize Arabs too.
Rambus closing with some strength today even as the market weakens. I'm betting/hoping things are going well again for Rambus in Whyte's court today. It's quite exciting really - we've all waited a long time since that fateful day that McGuire laid out his well researched ruling and the stock was at 35 bucks. Seems like an eternity with a lot of lost money and lost hope transpiring in the interim.
My notes...
It’s a sad commentary that the operator introducing the Rambus cc is a better speaker than Bob…
Bob sounds like he ran to the cc and is trying to catch his breath…
I can picture him sitting on the throne and then looking at his watch and being like – oh shit (pun intended), the conference call is starting…
Disclosures (no one listens to those)
Harold Hughes – rolled up sleeves, great progress
Patent licensing - NEC, Elpida, Renasanc (5 more years), and one year deal with one company (not named) to give them more time to re-negotiate (Hitachi or Toshiba???)
Dead air…
XDR traction – selected by big electronics company to be named publicly soon
Teradici selected XDR too
Increasing momentum (Harold said Elixe is wrong and that XDR is not a niche product)
More traction – talking about PCI-Express
(when will traction become dollars)
Litigation – today – first days of Hynix trial (unclean hands trial will last two weeks)
With this out of the way, this will allow Rambus to argue the merits of the technology
Action at FTC is still pending – appeal will be resolved in the next quarter or two (maybe)
Took 3 weeks for the latest Rambus motion to be posted on FTC site (Harold doesn’t know why) – the motion to reopen by Rambus “powerful”
Believe they are helped by Samsung guilty plea
October 31st to address protective order on DOJ evidence
7 projects running and been asked to do more – Rambus in high demand
Back to Bob
Finance crap already stated in press release
Total cash down 83 million because 84 million used to repurchase bonds
Total rev. was 36 million which exceeded mgmt’s expectations
SDRAM and DDR revenue were down 28% sequentially (loss from Samsung and other factors)
Without Intel payments, SDRAM and DDR represent 44% of revenue
License and license renewals – still in active discussions
120 million in royalties last year
78% of last years royalties are under contract this year
Flex IO and XDR explain most of contract revenue increase
Operating expenses excluding litigation were down 5% over last quarter
4rth Quarter guidance
Revs 39-43 mill
Operating costs 33-37 mill
Litigation most difficult to predict range of 9-12 mill for Q4
Net interest and other income 2.5-3.5 mill
Tax rate 37-39%
Upcoming events – open trading on Nov 15th open Nasdaq followed by analyst day
Questions:
AG Edwards Color on royalty form PCI express
Answer: Bob won’t talk about it – they are not material from PCI
WR Hambrecht Clarification on one year renewal - Mgmt can’t comment on who it is (Amir mentioned Toshiba)
XDR royalty question – ramp up toward end of the year?
Bob says: Playstation 3 is first to market – Q1 06 for Playstation launch
First significant product
Talks with Intel???? (good question)
Harold can’t comment.
Litigation question answered by Bob Kramer (who is that???)
Hambrecht wants to know about timing of unclean hands verdict…
Mike Crawford question:
NANFlash – does Rambus have IP here?
Harold says it’s a memory interface that Rambus provides for this – Rambus will add value over the years here
E-mail questions:
Highly dependent on 4 customers – when will they get a more diversified revenue base?
Hughes gives the generic, rehearsed answer here…
AG Edwards again: more color on PCI licensee and project
Fiber channel interface – more opportunity on the contract side – no significant royalty on that in the future
Michael Cohen from Pacific:
Asked about 10/31/05 AT hearing and FTC motion to reopen
Bob Kramer says – we can’t talk about it (Where is Danforth – did he take his options and run?)
Can the FTC view the DOJ documents even if the protective order isn’t lifted – maybe is the answer
Hynix conclude in June 2006
Micron later that year
Q1 or Q2 2006 for action in AT case
Another question: Performance based bonus plan instead of stock options???
Hughes says “hell yeah – we have one” and we have the stock options and the compensation board is going to keep both of them (goddam money grubbers)
Infringeon2003 it is a take off on infringe upon. :)
Hope I didn't stick my foot in my mouth too much the other day. It's easy to use the shield of anonymity to be less than tactful.
I'm wondering if we'll see any incrementally postive news today given that the earnings call is on. Maybe Rambus will announce a collaborative deal with some obscure company in a niche market ;>
Also was just thinking about Whyte and how the Rambus trial may turn out to be a seminal case for him. I would like to think that Whyte is interested in justice and equity (and maybe he altruistically is), but if he has aspirations to an appeals court, then it is of some importance that he gets a case of such magnitude and controversy right. If he specifically would like to join the CAFC, it would probably make sense for him to want to keep his ruling on "fraud" and JEDEC disclosure requirements consistent with that of the superior court. Payne knows that it's a snowball's chance in hell that he'll ever get nominated so he doesn't care - he's more interested in "southern justice" - let's hang them evil West Coast city slickers. Point being, I would be shocked to see Whyte issue a ruling that was contrary to the CAFC's - he want to look good to a group of his future peers.
Any thoughts on how long it will be before Whyte rules on spoliation???
Finally...
AP
Samsung to Pay $300M Fine for Price Fixing
Thursday October 13, 12:45 pm ET
By Ted Bridis, AP Technology Writer
Samsung to Pay $300 Million Fine for Price Fixing, Federal Officials Announce
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Samsung, the world's largest maker of memory chips for computers and other electronic gadgets, will plead guilty to price fixing and pay a $300 million fine, federal officials announced Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The penalty is the second-largest criminal antitrust fine in history and caps a three-year investigation of the largest makers of "dynamic random access memory" chips, a $7.7 billion market in the United States.
The guilty plea by South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Semiconductor Inc., was to be entered Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
The Justice Department already has secured guilty pleas from two other companies and collected more than $345 million in fines.
"Price-fixing threatens our free market system, stifles innovation and robs American consumers of the benefit of competitive prices," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said.
A Samsung spokesman declined to comment immediately.
Samsung received grand jury subpoenas in connection with the investigation during 2002, and put aside $100 million late last year to pay potential criminal penalties.
Samsung's top competitor, Seoul-based Hynix, agreed earlier this year to plead guilty to price fixing and pay a $185 million fine. Last September, rival Infineon Technologies AG of Germany agreed to a $160 million fine.
The government accused the companies of conspiring in e-mails, telephone calls and face-to-face meetings to fix prices of memory chips between April 1999 and June 2002. The chips are used in digital recorders, personal computers, printers, video recorders, mobile phones and many other electronics.
The government said the victims of the alleged price-fixing were Dell Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Apple Computer Inc., International Business Machines Corp., and Gateway Inc.
The investigation started in 2002, a year after memory chip prices began to climb even though the high-tech industry was in a tailspin. At the time, the hikes were attributed to tight supplies, although then-Dell Computer CEO Michael Dell blamed them on cartel-like behavior by chip makers.
(Uh-oh. I feel a rant coming on...)
Your rants are quite tame - besides I thought it was my job to complain about the poor value Rambus management has been for shareholders. You pay top dollar, you expect top quality.
The whole debate over the future success for XDR would be a lot less important if the MMs would just pay Rambus for the multitude of RAM flavors that they infringe upon.
(and a certain Rambus message board TE as well ; )
That same poster mentioned above is still claiming that there was no conspiracy to destroy RDRAM, another Rambus "niche" product. (I'm hoping that if I goad Elixe to respond that Calbiker will magically reappear as well).
I'm anxious to listen to the cc and see if we can get any more color on recent happenings.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply - I can't say I disagree with your opinion. In my case, my position is not large enough to justify spending any significant money for "real-time" information. I did subsribe for Hager for a year and you can be damn sure I wasn't the one "sharing" with others.
Rambus has become more of a point of intrigue for me than an investment. I think the upcoming spoliation trial will present a trading opportunity and might convince me to get serious about the dollars I put up. Until then, I will continue to appreciate the largesse of others and continue to hope that Rambus does get justice in the courts.
Thanks.
However, Birchenough at Lehman is one that I pay attention to, so if you have access to his reports I would weigh them with more credibility.
Lehman has an equal weight on TELK and a price target of 20 (which isn't so bad from current levels). I understand that most analysts will be wrong from time to time (especially with biotechs), but Birchenough was very bullish on both CGTK and CNVX and we know how those turned out (some of us first-hand).
He also recently downgraded OSIP which is interesting (it seems he had a 60 or 70 price target on it forever) and I've seen him flip on AGIX - he's currently bullish.
I do have to give him credit on CTIC - he called that one.
Re TELK
The only thing that makes me nervous on TELK is that so many sell-side analysts are bullish on this thing with a median price target around $29 (almost double today's price). Whenever a majority of these clowns are in the same boat, I worry about the ship sinking.
That said, the theorized MOA is interesting and suggests that Telcyta ought to be a potent potentiator and perhaps even an effective monotherapy. Link to MOA (pretty picture)
http://www.telik.com/pipe_telcyta.html
However, I'll leave you with some of Prudential's thoughts on the matter...
While we see some prospects of success for its ASSIST-3 trial, we're
unchanged in our thesis that ASSIST-1 and ASSIST-2 results could be negative.
* Telik is also pursuing its lead candidate Telcyta in triple-combination
with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of non-small
cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While data from this trial has been positive thus
far, we think the lowering of the maximum allowable dose in the trial
protocol (due to side effects) may result in lower response rates.
Furthermore, we think the NSCLC treatment landscape is becoming more
competitive.
* We reiterate our Underweight rating and $13 price target.
----- DISCUSSION ------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation and Risks
We value the company using two different approaches: P/E multiple and product
pipeline valuation. For the P/E method, we assume TELCYTA's approval in 2007
based on a positive result from the Phase III combination trial in ovarian
cancer. We forecast EPS into 2009, or about two years after TELCYTA's launch.
We chose a P/E multiple of 45x, the highest we would assign to a company that
does not yet have a product on the market. We use a high discount rate of 30%
mainly because of the high clinical risks in TELCYTA. Applying these
parameters to our 2009 EPS of $0.86, we arrive at a price target of $14. Our
product pipeline valuation arrives at a price target of $12. Our price target
of $13 for the next 12-18 months is the average of the two price points.
JMKEL - are you going to be attending any of the upcoming Hynix hearings?
There is no way for me to ascertain whether you are one and the same as Infringeon, but he/she is looking to get paid to relay information to people on the Yahoo board and TMF. I, for one, appreciate the free flow of information here and elsewhere and I think it's admirable when contributors like Stuart Steele and Regina and Scruffy and Paul and ownerofbusiness and doxiemom and waskilroyhere and JMKEL and many others (sorry for names I missed) are kind enough to relay their first-hand accounts.
BTW - one way to be able to share PACER information would be to set up a Yahoo group where they can be uploaded to. I can't remember how much storage you get, but we could delete old files as it fills up. Just a suggestion - also with Yahoo groups, you need an invite which will enable some control over who sees the files.
2) The weak stock price.
Interesting - is this a contrarian indicator for you or do you see it as approaching a reasonable valuation?
PGS - you seem skeptical of a number of biotechs - are you still bullish on TELK?
TIA