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.
lastchoice AND micromays2 thanks for your help.
Herb Greenberg - used to be this close ||
to Cramer, maybe still is.
He "exposes" stock scams and company hyping.
Think he's now w/ Marketwatch.
Me thinks he is a tool of hedge funds.
That BS is from Greenberg. A snake!
docrew0,
HAVE YOU EVER FOCUSED ON TECH THAT "cuts greenhouse gases" ?? http://compoundsemiconductor.net/articles/news/10/1/20/1
JA said on TMF that DY is his friend.
I cannot imagine what docs would be in Whyte's chambers now.
Does Whyte have anything pending on which he would be preparing an Order?
Anyone?
smd aka zonzgr8
-----------------------
POST FROM TMF YESTERDAY:
Author: dyellum
Hello all
I visited the clerk's office today and discovered that the new documents are not available. The clerk (hottie) was very kind. She explained that the documents were most likely "in chambers."
This is my second trip to the clerks office in the last month. Both trips have been unfruitful. The copy machine is down and the docs are in Judge Whyte's chambers.
Does this mean that the storm is brewing . . .
Sunny in San Jose
DY
TODAY, IN RESP TO A Q WHY GO THERE:
I was looking for any updated documents from judge Whyte. In the past, I have found that the most recent docs give us a bigger picture of the case. With ramboids, we tend to speculate just a bit. With the actual docs in hand, it simmers us down a bit, or lights a fire . . .
DY
You are too mucheth!
RMBS intellec. property in Nintendo
by: jimizdaman 01/26/06 10:51 am
Msg: 884136 of 884137
RMBS intellec. property in Nintendo "Revolution"
Can some posters summarize the evidence that RMBS intellectual property will be in the new Nintendo "Revolution" which will is supposed to be launched in time for Christmas selling in 2006?
didn't we disc - what happens if Hynix appeals
======== sjs opines in the last line ========
if Hynix appeals
by: Send me a message! sjsjs1111 (64/M/Amherst NH)
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 12/31/05 08:56 am
Msg: 843416 of 883825
by: bearinvt 12/31/05 08:21 am
Msg: 843408 of 843414
Although the date of the infringement trial start is unclear (March or May), it is likely to occur in 06. We will have a ruling on spoliation & unclean thoughts in 06 also. After these two court matters are resolved (even if Hynix appeals - and you have to assume they will), that will be proof enough for the market, IMO.
Hoping 2006 be a great year for all riders on the bus. cheers>>>>>>>>>>>
If they appeal and loose, I think the price will go up when they are done!
Stuart Steele
Posted as a reply to: Msg 843408 by bearinvt
Assume that no matter what good things happen to RMBS it will take the market a while to appreciate the significance of what has occurred. Mgmt at RMBS is ready to buy shares thanks to the 1/23 announcement.
===============
I have no idea what to think about this one ...
More downside then anytihng IMO, not to many will go long to hold at this level, plus the buyback program... they bought everything so far at 13 average, I dunno why they'd buy it up here... plus its just authorzation TO buy... it takes them years and years such as there last buy back which isn't complete...
whats ur opinion after todays activity... im short with some 36.17s and others but... just waiting for it to lose some support for a -5.00 fall... if it don't happen obviously it's gonna burst upward quickly.
The criminal statute sets the standard in words we can all agree on, although the case turns on the meaning of those words.
Bear in mind that the RMBS spoliation/unclean hands issues all involve judge-made law, so the target "wording" is less of a target and much fuzzier.
Also, AA's setting is crimnal prosecution where, as noted on the bottom of page 6, the courts exercise restraint assessing "the reach" of the statute in part out of a concern to give "fair warning."
Your find is interesting nonetheless.
=========
need for a nexus between the document destruction and a "particular proceeding." <i/>
Books could be written on croaker; he's a psychological mess.
I gave him a compliment today after he posted a "reality check" message to longs.
He has lost much of his "fan base" on yahoo, and the hostility toward him is well justified imo. He does have the ability to do a good "reality check" message when he tries, and avoids the bs.
TechnoWreck on TMF posted the composite of YMB posts by : flyer_21144
////////=> Why doesn't Sammy "get it" when Payne says "[Sammy, you need to] reflect on that offer"
That discussion was Jan. 18, so maybe the subsequent Seeborg mediation gave 'em a chance to ponder the relative leverage reflected there. But maybe NOT.
===========================================
TRANSCRIPT OF CC, Sammy in VA
by: flyer_21144
01/25/06 11:13 am
Msg: 882743 of 882777
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF CONFERENCE CALL
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. PAYNE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DIANE J. DAFFRON, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 25
APPEARANCES: (All via telephone)
Brian C. Riopelle, Esq.
McGUIRE WOODS LLP 901 East Cary Street
Richmond, VA 23219 (804)775-1084
David J. Healey, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77002
(713)546-5111
Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff
R. Braxton Hill, Esq. CHRISTIAN & BARTON
909 E. Main Street, Suite 1200 Richmond, VA 23219
13 (804)697-4100
Gregory P. Stone, Esq.
Daniel Beck, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 17 (213)683-9100
Counsel on behalf of the Defendant
(The proceedings in this matter commenced at 5:00 2 p.m.)
THE COURT: Hello.
MR. RIOPELLE: Hello, Your Honor. Samsung and Rambus.
THE COURT: All right. Starting with counsel for the plaintiff, who is here for whom, please?
MR. HEALEY: David Healey from Weil Gotshal for the plaintiff.
MR. RIOPELLE: Brian Riopelle from McGuire Woods for the plaintiff.
MR. STONE: Gregory Stone and Daniel Beck from Munger, Tolles & Olson for the defendant, Your Honor.
MR. HILL: Braxton Hill from Christian & Barton on behalf of Rambus, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. I understand we need to reschedule this hearing that was set for Thursday, the 19th. And I'm sorry for the loss, Mr. Stone, of Judge Burns. He was a mighty fine fellow and a fine judge.
MR. STONE: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that.
THE COURT: Mr. Healey, as I understand it, you have some surgery, and we need to look past what date, gentlemen, to find a suitable date to argue?
MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, this is David Healey. My surgery is January 25. I'm available before that, but after the 25th I think to be safe I have to schedule it for sometime after February 10.
THE COURT: All right. I'm not pushing you. I want you to understand that. I have available most of the day January the 23rd, but when I'm undergoing surgery, I don't particularly want to be out of town the day before.
MR. HEALEY: My surgery is not until the 25th. So the 23rd is fine with me. I'm agnostic, Judge. I'm happy to do it before the surgery or after the period where I need to be at home. To accommodate the Court's schedule, I'm happy to do it on the 23rd.
THE COURT: It doesn't make any difference to me. You gentlemen pick.
MR. STONE: Your Honor, I have a conflict on the 23rd. My preference would be to put it as soon as we could after Mr. Healey's surgery if everybody is agnostic about it.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. STONE: I don't want to push the recovery. Maybe we could do it, if the Court's schedule would allow it, Monday, February the 20th.
THE COURT: That's Presidents' Day and that's a court holiday. I'll be here, but the rest of the court won't.
MR. STONE: Would the 21st work?
THE COURT: I can do the 21st in the afternoon, say, around 1:30.
MR. HEALEY: That will be fine with me, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Does that suit everybody?
MR. STONE: That's fine.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Healey, if it is necessary to change that, we can just adjust it to accommodate your recuperation. All right. For now it will be at 1:30 on the 21st. Have you all, Mr. Healey, thought about Rambus's invitation to revisit whether you want to accept the
attorneys' fees proffer that they made? And I assume Mr. Stone would include upping the ante to current day fees, but I don't know that he did that. You-all need to reflect on that offer.
MR. HEALEY: I will double check with my client, Your Honor, but I believe we prefer to go forward, but I will double check with my client and notify the Court if there is any change.
THE COURT: All right. Is there anything else you all need to deal with? I sent you an order saying that, when we were having this hearing on the 19th, that if you wanted to argue the issue of the exceptional case, you could do that, in view of the decision in Hynix v. Rambus. Does anybody need any additional briefing by virtue of that situation?
MR. STONE: Not from Rambus's perspective, I don't think, Your Honor.
MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, we're happy to address that live at the hearing. If you prefer briefing, obviously we'll provide briefing.
THE COURT: No, I don't want to generate any more fees. February 21 then. I'll see
you at 1:30.
MR. HEALEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Good luck on your surgery.
MR. HEALEY: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Take care.
MR. STONE: Thank you, Your Honor. Bye-bye
THE COURT: Bye.
I, Diane J. Daffron, certify that the foregoing transcript is a correct record of the proceedings taken and transcribed by me to the best of my ability.
Smiles,
Bill(niw to read it)
by: JustMyOpinionNotThatItMatters (43/M/Seattle) 01/25/06 11:27 am
Msg: 882769 of 882782
Well that shoots down the "Rambus asked for the extension" theory. It looks like some Judge passed away that Stone knew. So if the reschedule was asked for by Rambus, it was so Stone could go to attend a service.
Then in determining a new date the Samsung's attorney's operation came into play.
It sounds like payne doesn't want to rack up anymore legal fees, but it does sound like Samsung still wants to proceed on the exceptional case issue.
"THE COURT: All right. Is there anything else you all need to deal with? I sent you an order saying that, when we were having this hearing on the 19th, that if you wanted to argue the issue of the exceptional case, you could do that, in view of the decision in Hynix v. Rambus. Does anybody need any additional briefing by virtue of that situation?"
So that is an interesting statement that can be taken many ways. Because of the Hynix case, you Samsung can argue exceptional case. Or, Rambus, because of the Hynix case, you can argue it's not an exceptional case, where previously I wouldn't have listened to a word you say.
Frankly, I don't see that the tiger has changed his stripes, or rather, that the slug has changed his slime. He may not want to generate anymore fees, because he doesn't want to read any more briefs that would undermine what his ruling is already written as.
I still look for a fvcking from payne, and one last chance to by below $30.
it WAS convenience of counsel in VA2
by: smdgc 01/25/06 11:19 am
Msg: 882753 of 882779
My surgery is January 25. I'm available before that
My surgery is January 25. I'm available before that
========
THE COURT: Mr. Healey, as I understand it, you have some surgery, and we need to look past what date, gentlemen, to find a suitable date to argue?
MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, this is David Healey. My surgery is January 25. I'm available before that, but after the 25th I think to be safe I have to schedule it for sometime after February 10.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 882745 by flyer_21144
Now see Whyte's discussion at p. 29
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/Uncleanhandspdf.pdf
"A legitimate consequence of a document retention policy is that relevant information may be kept out of the hands of adverse parties."
Whyte is saying, we need to be practical, and the US SCt has that very same view. If you adopt the policy legitimately, and act on it legitimately, there may be consequences that are negative for Hynix, but that's too damn bad.
next look closely at the Arthur Andersen case language:
REHNQUIST:
“Document retention policies,” which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the hands of others, including the Government, are common in business. See generally Chase, To Shred or Not to Shred:Document Retention Policies and Federal Obstruction of Justice Statutes, 8 Ford. J. Corp. & Fin. L. 721 (2003). It is, of course, not wrongful for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy under ordinary circumstances.
pp 7-8
Bear in mind that the case IS NOT a precedent for ours, but it validates the propriety of destroying docs pursuant to "a valid document retention policy under ordinary circumstances."
first look at the Arthur Andersen case itself:
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States
544 U.S. ___ (2005)
Docket Number: 04-368
Abstract
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1829/
full case:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/31may20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-368.p...
I think they were contrasting Payne's 100% "toss it" ruling
with Whyte's 0%
That is the diff they refer to, not the other.
==========
The weakest part of the IA request IMHO
was the 3rd condition, starting at bottom of brief page 14, (pdfpage 20).
(Ok, has anyone yet pointed out the improper characterization of the Infineon cross-license and royalty payments to bus)
IMO, they
= believe their own BS
= lost objectivity some time ago (another way of saying they believe their own BS)
= are making a record
==============================
[Can this goofy language be a way to signal the court that 'the client forced me to do this, against all logic', sort of like a pilot nonsense codephrase to convey hijacking?]
# 1 - not unusual to be done just as he did it
# 2 - the "spoliation by a plaintiff" body of law is much less developed, and remember, this is all judge-made law - no statute exists. I think Whyte wanted a standard
= that fits the legal precedents
= makes real world sense
So he had to listen 1st, and then decide what made good sense.
Oh and by the way, the US v. Arthur Anderson comments from the US SCt, while not leading to a new articulation of a new standard, gave insight into the very practical approach the highest court would use for spoliation/doc retention plans; that case is too recent to have informed the earlier reported cases.
=========
I would think Whyte would lay down the standard BEFORE the trial begins
Cal, muchas gracias!
Especially given the # of times Whyte has bent over backwards to be extra generous to Hynix with do-overs, etc.
========
i simply wish i had a live feed when he read it!
Watch for Rambus to submit a brief in opposition that is so well tailored that Whyte can slip it on as his own.
=========
Gentleman and Gentleladies,
where i do appreciate your insight, i think you are off your rocker if you believe whyte will take this well. he may certify, but hynix pretty much told him he was not rational.
i know a number of federal judges, and i can tell you their reaction when i tell them they are wrong at something mundane....it aint pretty. to have some overlitigous korean crony attempting to stuff a brief under the robe of one of the most distinguished federal judges? i simply wish i had a live feed when he read it!
read hynix's motion and immediatly re-read judge whyte's finding of fact. you might see that he went over every question they raised, point by point. they are simply saying, you are wrong! i dont know how to put it any simpler. just read both back to back. see if you come to a different conclusion.
im getting the picture of one angry man in a black dress.
jmho,
good luck,
cap
Cal,
FWIW, I'm at 80% on this issue (80% chance Whyte turns down Hynix on new trial AND request for appeal).
Even as to the 20% remaining, I'd say there's a
50% chance Whyte allows the appeal and goes ahead w/ phase 2 while the appeal is pending.
If Whyte lets Hynix ask CAFC I'd say there's an 80% chance CAFC refuses to hear the appeal.
Any appeal like this is a 4 to 6 month process AT MAXIMUM, if CAFC agrees to hear it.
Good luck with the algebra!
========
1. Whyte does not grant appeal, continues with 2nd phase of trial. Probability is P1 = 40%. This has zero selling pressure (S1=0). I'm using a selling pressure scale from zero (no sell) to 1 max sell (100% sell) .
missing pages are back - Hynix Motion for New Trial or Permission to Appeal
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2006-1-19%20hynix%20brief%20re%20motion%20for%20new%20trial%20o...
Buying is a decision
Not buying is a decision.
....... too. FWIW.
CMC conference insight
what is this poster's name here on ihub?
for some reason the ID "lolo" sticks in my mind
===========
You had to be there to hear Hynie
by: octavefiddler
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 01/23/06 02:08 pm
Msg: 879992 of 880011
Pleading with the court for some rules
about how to keep their pricefixing and document dstrction away from the ears of the jury.
At the last CMC, they had a written list of concerns, and then one they handled strictly orally.
They said that since the (bus's) unclean hands matter had been heard and ruled upon, there was no place in bringing hynie's bad behavior into the infringement trial, and that it might unfairly bias a jury (to know the facts of their behavior).
Stone allowed as how the simple breaking of rules by hynie would not be brought in simply by itself,
but that it might become relevant if hynie witnesses had bad memory and the documents had been purged.
So, there was a stalemate on this, but very clearly hynie's highest priority was keeping that stuff out of court and off the record; Thus the oral pleadings.
BTW, I don't think that the CMC conference transcript will become public without special effort by someone. But it is no less pivotal.
I think the IA is a 'hail-mary' shot,
and am betting the court declines it as without merit.
JMDO,
OF
What are the downside risks?
cool ID
Greetings,
I post on the RMBS board with some frequecy.
I have some shares, a very small position, in IDCC.
Just beginning a new DD effort & considering a larger investment. Suggestions of where to look?
What are the near and long term dates of events that are expected to move the shares, e.g., Nokia.
TIA
smd
The estimate is $1 billion BEFORE trebling.
Keep us posted; I am in the same decision process. TIA.
This was predominantly a fact-based decision, so the only GOOD reason this should go up on appeal is IF Whyte thinks there were two clear choices on which law to apply and perhaps he chose the wrong one.
My bet is 80% chance he denies this motion.
oh boy ... from sjs:
This is it
by: sjsjs1111 (64/M/Amherst NH)
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 01/20/06 10:41 am
Msg: 875968 of 875975
I just fired the rest of my dry powder
Stuart Steele
docrew, hasn't there been an issue appealed already from Kramer and quickly rejected by the CA appellate cts?
==========
from crypt on TMF:
2. I was concerned about the comments made regarding scheduling of the AT suit. Someone's motion to compel arbitration will be appealed. Danforth said they expected the appeal to be resolved in 2006. 2006!? I thought we had a crack of getting this trial going by summer. What's up with this resolving an appeal in 2006!? YeeeYucky muck. The wheels of justice are soooo stuck in molasses.
I assume you could have gotten the "each part must be analysed and claim charts prepared" answer, but I'm sure it would have been just as unsatisfying.
I think more than anything the pressure relates to the need to at all times be careful what you say and how you say it; always an issue in a CC but magnified here with so much, so many things, ripening RIGHT NOW!
The best thing I heard on the CC, besides what I expected to hear, was
# 1 - confirmation on "ongoing" discussions on three fronts; this means a settlent really could happen unexpectedly ANY day!
# 2 - confirmation that RMBS will be seeking summary adjudication of the phase 3 Hynix litigation; besides adding settlement pressure on Hynix, this means the Hynix litigation could be OVER in March!
smd aka zonzgr8
If Hynix trial is pushed back to July THAT IS POSITIVE NEWS - they want to stop trial prep due to settlement discussions!