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.
If it is July, more likely it is AT trial or Micron/Rambus trial in Del.
thanks Mark and docrew
docrew - can you point me to the Seaborg order governing the mediation...ya know the parties' counsel are directed to submit this, bring the client, all that?
ignore the post's title:
AMD's long-term microprocessor strategy
by: lopdahl2000 01/18/06 05:49 pm
Msg: 870940 of 871012
Update: I was passed a rumor that says that the POWER6 core is based on the Cell PPE, and that POWER7 is internally called "Cell 2." Take that for what it's worth. At any rate, I mention this because it may well be the case that the POWER5/970 lineage really is dead, and that IBM will unify everything around Cell.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060118-6002.html
waiving a red flag in front of Hynix?
Re: Hearing Delay Extra// TOMONTHEBUS
by: smdgc 01/18/06 07:06 pm
Msg: 871091 of 871091
Hey Tom, you think this postponement for 30 days is waiving a red flag in front of Hynix?
I do!
TJ - ease up a bit; Payne must ride herd over the cases on his docket.
This hearing continuance will either be
= to proceed as originally planned for 1/19/06
or
= to present him with signed stipulations to dismiss the case pursuant to a settlement agreement.
smd
Rambus' counsel asked for the hearing to be cancelled, not rescheduled, as far as I can tell. It DOES indicate that a settlement is under discussion.
They could talk for days if they are talking settlement.
They just don't want to waste time appearing before Payne when the talks are underway.
They gain the avoidance of many forms of hurt
wilful infringement "extra" damages
wilful infringement liability for Rambus's atty fees
AT treble damages
possible injunction/shut down of US sales
contending with irate OEMs asking for imdenification (and security backing up the indemnification) after receiving infringement letters from Rambus
What did I miss?
================
what would amigos gain by accepting? They could easily prolong things for 3 or 4 more years b
Msaba, I believe the 2/23 court appearance before Kramer should be comprehensive, meaning the earlier vague references to setting a trial date should that day give way to a firm trial date.
Now, if only those "shoulds" would only ripen to certainties, we're off to the races.
Docrew,
very very unlikely it is open to the public.
regards,
smd
Rambus on German exchanges
by: smdgc 01/16/06 12:08 pm
Msg: 864953 of 864964
http://de.finsearch.yahoo.com/de/index.php?s=de_sort&nm=rambus&tp=S&r=GER⊂=Su chen
Randy, you sd Hynix does not mind if DOJ docs are released, and I sd I cannot understand why Hynix would not mind.
don't see why you'd say that
====
Hynix doesn't MIND
AT judge (Kramer) will decide 2/23/06 whether to allow them to go to FTC, but there are reasons - WELL SEE NJ post below.
Not to worry, Rambus has the docs, but they ARE NOT PUBLIC.
=====================================
I WROTE:
NJ postulates a reason why Kramer pushed out the DOJ decision (i.e., whether to grant a Rambus motion to amend the existing protective order so as to allow Rambus to share w/ FTC copies of the DOJ docs it has in hand).
As I understand him, NJ suggests Kramer saw that if he granted wider access to the DOJ docs, the amigoes would appeal and slow the AT case down.
..................=============..................
NJ RESPONDS:
That's not exactly correct. Kramer postponed his hearing to lift the protective order on the documents that are under seal for several reasons IMO. One reason is to allow the parties time to reach an amicable settlement. His new hearing date on lifting the protective order is Feb. 23rd. First, he new back in late November that this would allow adequate time for Whyte's to issue his spoliation decision. Second, he knew that if the decision was favorable, it was not as important that the FTC had those documents to counteract the "testimony" of people like Appleton. The FTC has been hanging on to this case due to "spoliation"....well that dog won't hunt any more, so getting the protective order lifted is no longer as important to Rambus.
I did post on another board that Kramer is ready to get his trial moving...and he wants to rock and roll. He knew for certain that if he had ruled to lift the protective order, there would be appeals and it would take months. I think he wants to get his trial started ASAP, and now if he doesn't lift the protective order (and I feel pretty sure he won't), then there will be no more delays in the AT case.
JMHO,
NJ
A hunch, and only a hunch: watch for an Bloomie, etc interview with Danforth to put all this stuff in context. Hoping he has a good comment from Whyte to quote as well.
Great weekend to all!
smd
A rolling stone gathers no moss!
docrew0
has Fred Bartlit been representing Micron in Del for a long time, or only recently?
He is, as they say, a "top notch" litigator/trial lawyer.
His partner represented Bush in the 2000 FLA stuff, and another partner is a classmate of mine.
They came out of the Kirkland firm, the one w/ Desmaris.
Jordan did not dis Payne - see below:
II. BACKGROUND
A detailed discussion of the background of this case, as well as related litigation involving Rambus's patents, was set forth by Judge McKelvie in an earlier opinion.
Micron, 189 F. Supp. 2d at 202-208. It suffices here to discuss the circumstances surrounding that earlier decision to delay the trial of this case.
Rambus asserted the same patents that are at issue here against Infineon Technologies AG ('lnfineon') in a lawsuit filed by Rambus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Rambus Inc. v. lnfineon Techs. AG, Civ. A. No.
3:00cv524 (E.D. Va.) (the "Infineon case"). "Infineon brought a fraud counterclaim similar to Micron's fraud claim in this case." Micron, 189 F. Supp. 2d at 203. The Honorable Robert E. Payne...
I like this very much - The parties will confer and, within ten days of this Order. submit a form of scheduling order and contact the court to arrange a teleconference to discuss the same
Remember Jordan had last July wanted to "coordinate" the MU trial to follow on the heels of the Hynix trial, and Stone alluded to a 1404 motion
see pp 15-16 and thereafter
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/050810ccmosancattach.pdf
28 U.S.C. § 1404 states in relevant part:
Sec. 1404. Change of venue
(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
FWIW from Da Greek
Re: Court Today?
by: nicdarealgreek 01/13/06 12:44 pm
Msg: 860220 of 860438
<And many more I'm sure. What a stellar bunch of Ramboid reps. to keep an eye on things, even if I do say so myself.>
Hey TDOX,
Sorry I won't be there; in addition to the obvious signs of the parties expressly mentioning productive settlement talks, keep a sharp ear out for any discussion of the parties deferring or pushing out deadlines for reports or discovery. This is a tell-tale sign that some kind of settlement negotiations are underway, and the litigators have been told to minimize costs.
Da Greek
Posted as a reply to: Msg 860187 by third_derivitive_of_x
justmy - good to have you here!
all I have from yahoo:
Rambus vs. Micron . . . . . . . . . . .
by: msaba 01/13/06 12:06 pm
Msg: 860107 of 860115
The judge, Kent Jordan, in the Delaware case of Micron vs. Rambus 1:00-cv-00792 has just lifte the condition on Rambus NOT to sue Micron over infringement elsewhere.
Now I expect Rambus to file a new suit against Micron in the NDCA, where it will be declared "related" and assigned to JW.
I think this means the Judge let Rambus take OFF the gloves and make this a real brawl
============
671 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental and Second Amended Counterclaims, and granting 674 Motion to Lift Condition.
2 year deals make sense:
October 2001 - hired
so
'03 re-up thru 10/'05
'05 re-up thru 10/'07
Officers very commonly will sign (or, will be asked to sign, or will themselves demand to sign) an employment ageement.
At lower levels in Co. it mostly protects the Co.'s interests. At higher levels in Co. it protects the employee as well as the Co.'s interests.
I see this as a re-up for Danforth on an original employment ageement that dates back to his original hire date.
from web site
John Danforth, Senior Vice President and General Counsel
John Danforth, senior vice president and general counsel, joined Rambus in October 2001 and leads its strategy to leverage innovations created by the engineering team, as well as grow the company's intellectual property portfolio.
I see nothing in the announcement by which to take the announced action as a prelude to Danforth's impending retirement. Do you?
I just do not read the Danforth stuff to mean he's on a retirement track.
smd
Is anyone planning a Richmond visit next Thurs for the Payne show?
indeed!
Who really knows what will happen?
Show me where ML as a firm, or the guy actually quoted, "follows" Rambus and I'll buy you a Starbucks.
This proclamation was resulting from a quant screen for smaller issues that had risen a lot (%-wise) in 2006 + Rambus was chosen from the list b/c someone at ML's trading desk needed to push down the price so as to minimize the hurt in buying Rambus shares for inventory "replenishment" purposes.
JMHO
smd
Superior Court of California minutes OCT-31-2005 ----- ANY FORMAL CONFIRMATION on the plan for mediation?
docrew0, am I correct that
EVERYTHING in the SF case is pushed out to 2/23?
& the mediation is underway?
=============
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco AT Case Number: CGC-04-431105 They will meet again in court JAN-12-2006 AT 9:30 AM IN 304
“10/31/05 “If counsel can agree upon a mediator, they may go forward with mediation. If they cannot agree, they may set up a conference call with the Court and the Court will select someone to serve as mediator.”
nice post by carrera:
Re: Carrera
by: carrera_from_avn (M/LA) 01/11/06 08:39 am
Msg: 853224 of 853248
Nuke,
In my view, Payne has little room left.
First, there exists a very strong argument he does not have jurisdiction. I think those of us who are experienced with Payne understand that he recognizes this by virtue of the additional briefing and hearings he is entertaining as opposed to having denied this argument out of hand when it was raised.
Second, in light of Whyte's ruling, I do not believe Samsung can establish all of the elements necessary to prevail in a Sec 285 case. A sitting federal judge on a more comnplete record, as well as the FTC Chief ALJ following a 51 day trial, have now both ruled RMBS did not commit any spoliation of any significance. As a result, viewing RMBS' conduct in the Samsung case objectively, it is easily established that RMBS acted reasonably when asserting its cross-claim.
Third, it doesn't matter. Assuming Payne awards attorney's fees to Samsung (which is all he can do - remember he cannot do anything regarding patent enforcement), and assuming he issues findings of fact adverse to RMBS in doing so, in light of Whyte's ruling as well as the ALJ's 1000s of findings of fact, there now exists too many proceedings on too many records to give collateral estoppel to one and ignore the others. Thus, and especially considering this would be brought before Whyte now anyway in the Samsung proceeding still remaining before him, the remainder of Virginia is a tempest in a teapot.
Walk through the hypothetical - Samsung says to Whyte "give Payne's ruling collateral estoppel effect against RMBS." Whyte replies, "Counsel, I have already considered that question. What was presented in the proceeding before Payne that was not before me?" Samsung would have to honestly reply, "Nothing Your Honor. Indeed in light of Payne's evidentiary rulings, far less was presented to him by his own choice." Whyte would conclude: "As I thought - move on Mr. Healy."
As always, I reserve the right to change my mind and change it often. Good luck.
Carrera
Whatever the area is called with sticky posts - I rec cal's post for placement.
I was refering to evid categories.
Nic, so you're not going to prognosticate how Whyte will handle the issue of what evid gets in?
jetcityrandy,
Read the order fron Del. posted by L/L yesterday.
If ya got private property
If ya got rts to property
If ya want to protect your exclusivity to those rts
ya gotta enforce ya rts
The crime is the slowness of our system, IMO, which is a question of Congress [not] paying attention to the pace and [not] providing laws and resources to minimize the slowness.
As long as there are humans in the system, and human nature/personalities, there will always be paynes - the issue is how long it takes to correct the f*ck-ups.
ALL....JMHO
Ask DELTA on TMF, as I remember he worked hard on this in convers. w/ tomonthebus right after the convert was done.
Will, think back to the convert deal over the past year and stop bitching about Bob. I'm happy as long as they keep sending him to Dale Carnegie courses.