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.
TJ CAL ALL
tj - thanks much. there was some discussion in the yahoo thread skip started, but I did not follow it
first post is for Cal to read, 2nd is for all:
*************
Re: Magnetic Storage
by: infringeon2003 07/10/06 09:02 pm
Msg: 1032725 of 1032728
The Alberta patent failed to reference the Heller patent which antedates it and is prior art to it. The Alberta patent should have referenced this but it did not. For that reason it is defective. But that is not the only reason.
RDRAM only has to meet the incoming and outgoing clock timing constraints of the memory chip closest to the midpoint. All other memory chips have relaxed timing contraints. Thus there is no need to compute the midpoint of the clock interval if all the chip operations can be completed refenced to the incoming and outgoing clok alignment circuits.
It is only neccessary for the incomming and outgoing clock alignment circuits to be efficient and anticipatory. This accomplished with a variable delay line that achieve full anticipation.
As you may know the speed of light in space is 1 ft per nanosecond. In a copper wire it is approximately .65 ft per nanosecond.
*************
Subj: News from the court...
By: infringeon2003
Date: 07/10/06 09:07 pm
Tomorrow bfore regular sesion I will post an update on what is happening in the federal court.
It is very interesting and significant.
It will take me a while to do this and tomorrow is soon enough.
Longs...you can sleep tight!
I need a volunteer
by: voluntarytrade (M/Washington, DC) 07/08/06 08:54 pm
Msg: 1031921 of 1031935
Last year the FTC turned over to me three CDs filled with Rambus trial exhibits. I'm never going to have the time to sort through all the docs--the FTC did not include an index--and I could use a volunteer to look through the docs and highlight anything important. If anyone is interested, e-mail me at voluntarytrade@yahoo.com.
- Skip
wonderful resource* for interested posters.
regards to all
smd
http://www.diaz-law.com/diazlaw/library-states.html#list-californiacases
current:
Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman
Pamela Jones Harbour, Jon Leibowitz, William E. Kovacic, and J. Thomas Rosch.
those who heard oral argument in Dec '04:
Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary
Pamela Jones Harbour
Jon Leibowitz
__________________________________________
www.abanet.org/antitrust/source/01-04/kovacic.pdf
Interview with William E. Kovacic, General Counsel,
Federal Trade Commission
<<NOW COMMISSIONER>>
<<NOTE: OGC is office of general counsel>>
BILL KOVACIC:
One major priority is to continue to develop the FTC’s distinctive capabilities as both a competition authority and a consumer protection agency. One of the most impressive develop-
ments in my professional lifetime is the progress the Commission has made towards realizing the potential inherent in the unique institutional design contained in the mandate that Congress gave
the FTC upon its creation nearly ninety years ago. A key area in which the Commission can and must justify its distinctive institutional existence is the administrative adjudication of competition and consumer protection matters. Administrative adjudication today commands a prominent place on the FTC’s policy agenda. In the past twelve months the FTC has issued decisions in two cases, PolyGram and Schering, and a number of other matters—including Unocal, Rambus, Chicago Bridge & Iron, Brown & Toland, and South Carolina Board of Dentistry—are in various stages of the administrative process. As a group, these matters are an important measure of the Commission’s capacity to use administrative elaboration to improve the quality of antitrust jurisprudence. OGC has advised the Commission extensively on administrative adjucation matters and expects to work closely with the Commission on other matters that have been or will be presented for decision by the Commission.
corrected....FROM MURIS'
Looking Forward:
The Federal Trade Commission and the
Future Development of U.S. Competition Policy
Remarks by
Timothy J. Muris
Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
Milton Handler Annual Antitrust Review
December 10, 2002
New York, New York:
"90. Rambus Inc., Dkt. No. 9302, Complaint ¶ 1 (June 18, 2002) (complaint issued) (pending before administrative law judge), available at <http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/06/rambuscmp.htm>. The complaint alleges that:
Rambus's anticompetitive scheme involved participating in the work of an industry standard-setting organization, known as JEDEC, without making it known to JEDEC or to its members that Rambus was actively working to develop, and did in fact possess, both patents and pending patent applications that involved specific technologies proposed for and ultimately adopted in the relevant standards. By concealing this information - in violation of JEDEC's own operating rules and procedures - and through other bad-faith, deceptive conduct, Rambus purposefully sought to and did convey to JEDEC the materially false and misleading impression that it possessed no relevant intellectual property rights. Rambus's anticompetitive scheme further entailed perfecting its patent rights over those same technologies and then, once the standards had become widely adopted within the DRAM industry, enforcing such patents worldwide against companies manufacturing memory products in compliance with the standards.
Complaint ¶ 2."
The current Chairman and Commissioners are:
Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman
Pamela Jones Harbour, Jon Leibowitz, William E. Kovacic, and J. Thomas Rosch.
//// -> Kovacic WAS GENERAL COUNSEL when the complaint against Rambus was filed
At the time of the Complaint
These were the Chairman and Commissioners:
Timothy J. Muris, Chairman
Sheila F. Anthony
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary
FROM MURIS'
Looking Forward:
The Federal Trade Commission and the
Future Development of U.S. Competition Policy
Remarks by
Timothy J. Muris
Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
Milton Handler Annual Antitrust Review
December 10, 2002
New York, New York:
"90. Rambus Inc., Dkt. No. 9302, Complaint ¶ 1 (June 18, 2002) (complaint issued) (pending before administrative law judge), available at <http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/06/rambuscmp.htm>. The complaint alleges that:
Rambus's anticompetitive scheme involved participating in the work of an industry standard-setting organization, known as JEDEC, without making it known to JEDEC or to its members that Rambus was actively working to develop, and did in fact possess, both patents and pending patent applications that involved specific technologies proposed for and ultimately adopted in the relevant standards. By concealing this information - in violation of JEDEC's own operating rules and procedures - and through other bad-faith, deceptive conduct, Rambus purposefully sought to and did convey to JEDEC the materially false and misleading impression that it possessed no relevant intellectual property rights. Rambus's anticompetitive scheme further entailed perfecting its patent rights over those same technologies and then, once the standards had become widely adopted within the DRAM industry, enforcing such patents worldwide against companies manufacturing memory products in compliance with the standards.
Complaint ¶ 2."
The current Chairman and Commissioners are:
Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman
Pamela Jones Harbour, Jon Leibowitz, William E. Kovacic, and J. Thomas Rosch.
At the time of the Complaint
These were the evil ones:
Timothy J. Muris, Chairman
Sheila F. Anthony
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary
Whatever can be done to Rambus, in the name of zealous protection of consumers, will be done.
smd
------------
The only silver lining is that maybe the FTC will go away - but at what cost???
Beware the FTC.
I believe they are lying in wait, only dormant because it serves MU's interest for them to not reveal their true intentions until Hynix is over with. Why intervene now and potentially help a MU competitor? They'd rather watch the court proceedings, and if no miracle develops for Hynix, then spring the surprise. At that point, Hynix will still have a judgement against them, and they will still have to defend that case on appeal regardless of what the FTC does.
It serves both them and MU to wait at this point...
Da Greek
lolo - 2 for a start, but don't expect a simple answer: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/02/merger_process.htm
and
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/02/mergerreviewprocess.pdf
smd
All - Just getting back from a biz trip...what's new and exciting besides the verdict?
BTW I won the verdict guess contest on the fool with my $270 million entry!
smd
*** I suggest we end the BS re docs ***
I suggest we end the BS
re docs NOT POSTED ON THE RAMBUS website.
Why should we have to look all over the place to read the damn court docs?
OUR FRIGGIN' COMPANY should
post the damn court documents
AT
http://investor.rambus.com/downloadcenter.cfm
If you agree PLEASE....
write to IR and urge them to do so!!!!!!!!!!
Rambus
Linda Ashmore, 650-947-5411 (Public Relations)
lashmore@rambus.com
Nicole Noutsios, 650-947-5050 (Investor Relations)
nnoutsios@rambus.com
Has this Hynix lingo been a focus?
Hynix 1st-Qtr Net Income Declines 8.6% on Provisions (Update2)
April 20 (Bloomberg) -- Hynix Semiconductor Inc., the world's second-largest maker of memory chips, reported first- quarter profit declined 8.6 percent from a year earlier because of provisions against patent disputes.
Net income fell to 289 billion won ($305 million), the Ichon, South Korea-based company said in a regulatory filing. Operating profit, which excludes provisions, climbed 26 percent to 376 billion won. Revenue increased 18 percent to 1.5 trillion won.
Chief Executive Officer Woo Eui Je, 61, boosted production of flash chips used in consumer electronics after iPod maker Apple Computer Inc. agreed to buy at least 20 percent of the company's NAND flash memory until the end of the decade. Rival chipmakers Samsung Electronics Co. and Toshiba Corp. have also increased production, leading to a glut.
The company was expected to report net income of 362 billion won, operating profit of 369 billion and revenue of 1.5 trillion won, according to the median estimate of seven analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.
First-quarter non-operating costs rose by 68 billion won mainly because of provisions against legal disputes with companies including Rambus Inc., said James Kim, head of Hynix investor relations.
Hynix and its rivals have boosted production of NAND flash memory as demand has surged for devices that use them, such as Apple's iPod Nano music player and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation Portable game machine. Sales of the chip climbed 55 percent last year, outpacing all other types of semiconductors with annual industry sales of at least $10 billion, according to estimates by the World Semiconductor Trade Statistics.
Flash in the Pod
Apple, the world's largest maker of portable music players, agreed last year to buy at least 20 percent of Hynix's NAND until 2010, Hynix said in its annual report last month. Cupertino, California-based Apple yesterday reported a 41 percent rise in first-quarter profit, buoyed by iPod sales.
Hynix boosted flash memory production to account for 36 percent of revenue during the first quarter, compared with about 10 percent a year earlier, Hynix said today in its statement.
The increased production led to oversupply and pushed prices down. Samsung Electronics, the world's largest NAND chipmaker, last week blamed a glut of the chip for the drop in its first- quarter semiconductor profit, though it forecast demand to exceed supply in the current quarter. Spot prices for the chips have plunged 67 percent this year.
Slower Declines
The decline in NAND prices, which fell 29 percent from the fourth quarter, will probably slow during the current quarter, Senior Vice President Kwon Oh Chul said during a conference call with analysts today. Samsung last week forecast a 20 percent drop in NAND prices this quarter.
Still, Hynix's profit margin from NAND was about 45 percent during the first quarter, more than triple the 11 percent margin for computer chips known as dynamic random access memory, according estimates by Morgan Stanley in an April 17 report.
Hynix's average NAND price during the first quarter fell 50 percent from a year earlier, compared with the 52 percent drop in costs, according to estimates by Citigroup Inc. analyst Jay Choi in an April 11 note to clients.
By comparison, Hynix's average first-quarter DRAM price fell 27 percent from a year earlier, while costs declined 24 percent, according to the Citigroup report.
Including overseas affiliates, net income fell 8.2 percent to 294 billion won, operating profit rose 12 percent to 360 billion won and revenue gained 14 percent to 1.4 trillion won, the company said.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Young-Sam Cho in Seoul at ycho2@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 19, 2006 21:44 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aKew5NVdErC8&refer=top_world_news#
Why RMBS bothers with the "spin" JMHO
by: smdgc 04/19/06 06:24 pm
Msg: 963617 of 963629
Why RMBS bothers with the "spin"
JMHO
It is all about CHANGING the way the company is perceived.
The greater the EXPECTATION built up that Rambus has valuable patents - the easier it is at each succeeding phase of licensing.
This is why Hughes talks OPENLY and publicly about addressable market, why they needed a creative AND articulate CFO.
They want to be perceived as what they are, the smartest guys on the block who DESERVE the few pennies per dollar of your sales.
smd
I understand perfectly Threejack. Ramboids is much more like ihub than anything else, and that makes it somewhat redundant.
smd
Cal, thanks for all the hard work.
smd
Cal,
ramboids was created as an email group to escape the ymb clutter, but it averages only about 2 emails a day. Let me know if you want an invite. I'm fairly sure TJ and docrew are in it.
smd
post to tomonthebus or msaba on ymb to get a ramboid invite
smd
Cal, Mark, others - is the issue w/ the word "coupled?"
Isn't the driver "linked" or "coordinated" w/ the clock?
smd
=========
output data driver was coupled to the external clock.
*Alternative to sky high IVs -strategy*
by: smdgc 04/13/06 11:00 am
Msg: 951367 of 951370
Tessera will pop on a Rambus win
TSRA is now at 34.4201
the April 35s are around 70 cents
TJQDG - CALL TESSERA TECHNOLOGIE$35 EXP 04/22/06
almost there, but slightly tweaked and slightly corrected where you are mixing apples and oranges:
Win or lose - we will elicit the following information from the jury:
1) Infringement (found/not found) related to each individual claim in question
2) Validity/invalidity of each claim/patent
3) With a win on validity and infringement of any claim, damages to Rambus with the goal of "making Rambus whole" (also interest to be paid on the award)
Almost certainly with a win, Rambus will ask Whyte to enter an injunction to prevent any manufacture or sale (irrespective of place of manufacture) of the infringing products in the USA.
Then, as a separate matter entirely, Rambus MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER INTO a future licensing agreement, however they choose to structure it, as long as they can come to an agreement w/ Hynix. If agreement cannot be reached, oh well.
=============
Please correct me if I am wrong. Witha win, we will elicit the following information from the jury/verdict:
1) Infringement related to each individual claim in question
2) Validity of each claim/patent
3) Damages with the goal of "making Rambus whole"
Then, Rambus will obtain a future licensing agreement for X% royalties, or file an injunction on production thereof.<>
Cal-
"is there any specific patent of the 6 which is vulnerable based upon the evidence presented by Hynix".
(Perhaps "any specific patent of the 6 which is particularly vulnerable" is the real Q).
smd
BusBuyMeA57LesPaul-
I think not, but it depends on verdict forms -
see
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 49. Special Verdicts and Interrogatories
(a) Special Verdicts.
The court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding upon each issue of fact. In that event the court may submit to the jury written questions susceptible of categorical or other brief answer or may submit written forms of the several special findings which might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or it may use such other method of submitting the issues and requiring the written findings thereon as it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury such explanation and instruction concerning the matter thus submitted as may be necessary to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If in so doing the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires the party demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand the court may make a finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict.
(b) General Verdict Accompanied by Answer to Interrogatories.
The court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict. The court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict, and the court shall direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict. When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment shall not be entered, but the court shall return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or shall order a new trial.
see ramboids
Q for Cal-------
A question I'm asking myself
by: fneww
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 04/12/06 12:00 pm
Msg: 950044 of 950083
Reports from the Rambus court attendees indicate that Hynix attorney's have been attempting to persuade the jury that Rambus patents are invalid using claims of prior art or obviousness as their rationale. Rambus' expert Murphy seems to have successfully thwarted these attempts. As there are 6 patents that have to be invalidated, my question is " is there any specific patent of the 6 which is vulnerable based upon the evidence presented by Hynix". Anyone who could answer this question obviously has to be able to follow the techno babble that has been reported. I for one can't answer this question so I'm wondering if any poster can.
The opinion of one "expert" below:
Re: Am I on everyone's ignore list?
by: rambiskit 04/11/06 11:32 am
Msg: 948873 of 948960
Re: "Does anyone know, or have any idea how the additional claims that Whyte ruled summary judgement of infringement on are handled in the damages?"
They simply are not handled, at all.
As long as Rambus gets a favorable verdict of validity and infringement on any one claim, that's it, game over. Damages do not depend on and are not a function of the number of claims that are infringed. Rambus is supposed to get the exact same "full" damages whether only 1 claims is infringed, all 10 in this trial or, in theory, all 50+ that were in the original filing of this case. Assuming that Rambus gets both validity and infringement on 1 claim, the only question left is the amount of the damages.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 948732 by JustMyOpinionNotThatItMatters
Cal - how will we decide whose % should win? LOL smd
yusfdbk: "IMO we see $1 billion or more no later than Friday at 5:00."
Re: Now the big // yourdeadmeat69
by: smdgc 04/08/06 10:08 am
Msg: 946587 of 947062
The dynamic duo of yusfdbk and infringeon are what I call the "billion dollar boys."
They take the damage # from Rambus' expert - - $108 million - - and multiply first by 18/4.4 to account for a rate difference "Rambus would have charged if doing a deal w/ Hynix back in 2000 on USA only sales."
Then they factor in a multiple due to the patents NOW being battle tested. That's how they get to the big, big numbers.
TO REALISTICALLY ESTIMATE the damage award you need to know 2 things:
1. What will Stone ask for as a damage amount?
2. What will Furniss ask for as a damage amount?
We are particularly at a loss not knowing #1 because apparently Rambus kicked butt in this trial.
Given the above there is no math formula worth using - - a damage estimate is nothing but a guess, and the pretense of logic and "formula" is simply pretense.
FWIW the "verdict guess" I made in the charity donation bet I placed with Nic and a couple other posters 10 days ago was $270 million exclusive of interest and costs. Nic's guess is much lower.
smd
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
Subj: Re: Now the big question is
By: yourdeadmeat69
Date: 04/08/06 03:50 am
They know what Hynix WW sales are: $18.8 billion. They've been told they should make Rambus whole. That's 658 million.
==============================================
Huh? WHO said 658M? The last expert I read about was talking 108M with perhaps double, and maybe court fees, and maybe you can look at the world but you can't, and a lot of other fuzzy dice.
Where are you getting these 658M numbers IN THE TRIAL as spoken to by witnesses itself without interpolation?
Not "it's easy just multiply times the square root of your shoe size" who said this number?
I think you guys are all setting yourself up for a disappointment. No wonder even that circus clown Cramer calls this a court case masquerading as a stock, and I own 4000 shares long.
SHOW-ME-THE-(TESTI)MONEY!
here is the Rockwell post - it became a thread.
smd
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687909&tid=rmbs&sid=468...
Re: Yusfdbk .... NukeJohn ...
by: Send me a message! nukejohn 04/08/06 05:30 pm
Msg: 946899 of 946900
The initial protective order that was put into effect in May 2005 is still in effect. That protective order is the order Kramer declined to lift....all parties agreed to it and it would be unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game. He will neevr lift that protective order.
The docs that Rambus filed in response to Samsung's Demurrer don't seem to fall under that protective order. I'm still not sure where those documents originated, but unless Micron can get a court above Kramer to issue a gag order (which is not currently a provision under CA law), then those documents become public in May...and the house of cards comes tumbling down. The sharks are circling, and they smell Micron's blood...and I'm not talking about Rambus sharks...I'm talking about all the shareholders lawsuits and the class action DRAM lawsuits from those harmed by higher DRAM prices.
NJ
nukejohn's response is my next post..........
Re: Yusfdbk .... NukeJohn ...
by: smdgc 04/08/06 05:21 pm
Msg: 946895 of 946900
I understand Kramer was firm on 2/23 that the docs. wld not be released to the public or allowed to be used in other cases
Do you know what turned him?
smd
==========
FWIW, I think the threat of the Rambus releasing the docs from Kramer's court has Micron scared to death. When combined with the threat of a favorable infringement verdict (including a potential huge sum awarded for damages) ....the next week is the best opportunity I have seen for an industry-wide settlement since Nov/Dec of 2004. Once the jury comes back with a verdict, the stakes will rise again.
welcome back cal
smd
LOLO, Cotchett himself told me shortly after the 2/23 hearing that Kramer refused to grant the Rambus motion to modify the existing protective order - & that the docs could not be used outside the AT case. (I do seem to recall discussion about Kramer willing to relook at the issue after 30 days, or some such.)
The only way to reconcile all of this is to ASSUME Kramer "entered and continued" the Rambus motion w/o denying it, then considered the Rambus motion along with the banditos' motion on 4/4. I don't recall if the 2/23 minutes can/would back up that construct.
As I posted a few minutes ago, the minutes of 4/4 that Kramer issued (that docrew posted this evening) are VERY STRANGE.
Oh well.
smd
That is one strange set of minutes.
smd
Long thread on TMF about this "stop loss" issue fyi.
smd
Given the APPARENT way the testimony is going, if Rocket J. Squirrel remains
= credible
= realistic in what he asks the jury to award,
the "verdict guess" I made in the charity donation bet I placed with Nic and a couple other posters 10 days ago may look really silly... My guess was $270 million exclusive of interest and costs.
smd
Qs for you Nic re:
He also made some crazy comment to the effect that he never consults with inventors before filing new continuation cases? He said this to make it seem SOP that he did not talk to F&H. Let me assure this audience: this is either an outright fabrication, or Steinberg enjoys flirting with malpractice.
these were continuation filings?
he was in-house at the time, no?
so the issues of inventorship, and his authority, and of "cost to prosecute the new filing" are diminished/eliminated - no?
smd
----------------------
----------------------
But all of this supposes that the jury understood any of this. From a visceral perspective Steinberg came across very well, so a lot of this detail may escape the jury or.... they may simply not care. I see this case much more critically than they do, so don't take my reactions as representative of theirs.
He also made some crazy comment to the effect that he never consults with inventors before filing new continuation cases? He said this to make it seem SOP that he did not talk to F&H. Let me assure this audience: this is either an outright fabrication, or Steinberg enjoys flirting with malpractice. If an attorney files a case, for example, based solely on his impression of what he/she thinks is patentable, and without consulting the inventors, I daresay that person will be in for a rude awakening. The PTO requires, for example, that the attorney confirm the inventorship of the claims as part of the filing; i.e., if there are two inventors named, please make sure that BOTH contributed to the application. Well, if you didn't bother asking either inventor, that seems like a rather signicant omission. That is definitely NOT SOP in the patent prosecution business, I was surprised he would say that. Again, though, I doubt this would even cause a blip on the juror's radar...
Boris? www.stuffucrave.com/image/borisnatasha.jpg
lolo - re rocket j. squirrel
key Q is whether the jury "gets it" when he impeaches.
smd
TJ can you find a place for this on perma?
TIA
smd
http://10kwizard.ccbn.com/filing.php?repo=tenk&ipage=1549904&doc=3&total=24&TK=RMBS&...
Cotchett 2/23/06 sd the docs are dynamite.
smd