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.
Both are good reasonable answers
My pleasure to help. In full disclosure I had help on air fare this time. Paid for many others on my own...but this time a gift.
Best!!!
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/RambusInvestors/
I have 22 new membership requests at RambusInvestors. After experiencing a lot of SPAM for several months and banning these members it seems the SPAM has stopped. Adding new members is of concern to me that we will again receive more SPAM. If you sent me a request to join (I approved 3 requests) and you are not approved as yet, please PM me with your Investor Village, IHUB or other ID. I would like to sign up only those individuals that have positive investing history with Rambus. I am not concerned with ones' opinions on Rambus management, members can be positive or negative on Rambus as a company. I will however only approve individuals that understand Rambus was defrauded of their rights to be paid for their intellectual property.
Best,
stratertele
<<<For skeptics who have doubts about the poster's real life identity, I believe only the numbest of numbskulls would attempt to impersonate the former Rambus General Counsel on the IV Rambus Message Board. My bet is John Danforth is the real McCoy.
Just my opinion.
Threejack>>>
Threejack,
I have had the opportunity to meet several Rambus investors while at court in San Jose. After making a phone call to one, I know that the John Danforth on IV is John...100% sure. If that is worth anything.
BBMA59LP (aka-stratertele)
What's the scoop of late is a tall order as usual with Rambus, but:
Samsung is crying let us out on the Steinberg issue on 9/22/08, we would rather infect Kramers AT trial instead since we lost some things by SJ here with you, JW.
SJs should be coming out on the claims construction ruling for the Jan '09 infringement trial.
Hynix should be fried on Quanta soon.
The list goes on...
Hello Threejack Docrew0, et.al.
This should be Rambus shareholders home away from home when IV is down like today. Had IV not exploded in functionality when Ramboids fled Yazoo we may have been here? In any case hello to all and I hope 2008 is the year to "collect" on our investment?
BBMA59LP (aka stratertele)
Threejack,
I hear ya...got bigger 2009 $20 and smaller 2010 $30 leap positions and stock. After the trial neeed to reexamin the process. Been there on options :(
Very nice post/thoughts...I find these posts helpful to my Myopia as I look out over time!
Thank you Mewantstock at IV board:
Micron's helping the FTC may help Rambus
From today's docket:
(I don't want to spend the time cleaning this up so take it as is. There are some good bits in here if you can decode it:)
4 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) hereby moves,
5 pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37, for an order:
6 (1) compelling Micron to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness before the
7 December 14, 2007 discovery cutoff on subjects relating to Micron’s
8 counsel’s communications with the FTC; and
9 (2) compelling Micron to remove the “Outside Counsel Only” confidentiality\ 10 designations from the phrases in Microns’ attorneys’ bills quoted in that
11 deposition notice.
12 This motion shall be heard on December 12, 2007, at 8:30 a.m., in a telephonic hearing
13 with Special Master the Honorable Read A. Ambler, Ret. This motion is based upon this Notice
14 of Motion and Motion, upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities, upon the
15 Declaration of Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, filed herewith, and upon all of the pleadings filed in
16 this action, and upon such further oral and written argument as may be received by the Court.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 • INTRODUCTION
3 On February 17, 2004, after a lengthy trial, an administrative law judge entered an initial
4 decision in Rambus’s favor in the Federal Trade Commission’s case against Rambus. The full
5 Commission subsequently reversed the initial decision, and an appeal from the Commission’s
6 decision is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. From the legal
7 bills Micron produced in support of its damages claims, Rambus has learned that Micron’s
8 attorneys engaged in many activities aimed at assisting the FTC in its proceedings against
9 Rambus. Apparently, for example, Micron’s attorneys REDAC TED
REDACTED
12 Exh. A (Micron attorney bills).1
13 Information about these activities is clearly relevant to Micron’s claim that the attorneys’
14 fees incurred pursuing them should be recovered as damages here. In light of Micron’s efforts to
15 introduce the FTC’s August 2, 2006 opinion in In the Matter of Rambus, Inc., Docket No. 9302
16 (“FTC Opinion”) into evidence in the January 22 trial, information about how Micron’s attorneys
17 may have affected that opinion is also relevant to the opinion’s trustworthiness, and so to its
18 admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) (“Rule 803(8)(C)”). In evaluating
19 trustworthiness under Rule 803(8)(C), courts look specifically at the extent to which agency
20 findings are based on “material. . . supplied by persons with an interest in the outcome of the
21 proceeding.” Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333, 1342 n.4 (3d Cir. 2002). Despite the
22 obvious relevance of the documents its attorneys provided to and communications its attorneys
23 had with the FTC, Micron has refused to comply with Rambus’s timely Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
24 notice on these subjects.
25 Micron also has designated its attorneys’ bills as “Confidential - Outside Counsel Only,”
26 the highest level of confidentiality set forth in the protective order in the above-captioned cases
27
28 All Exhibits referenced herein are attached to the Luedtke Declaration.
4030332.1 - 2 -
Motion to Compel Micron’s Production of 30(b)(6) Witness on Communications with FTC CASE NOS. CV-00-20905 RMW. C05-00334 RMW, C05-002298 RMW, C06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 587 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 5 of 11
1 (“Protective Order”). The passages from those bills quoted in Rambus’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
2 notice do not meet the strict requirements for that designation under the Protective Order.
3 Despite Rambus’s request that Micron remove the confidentiality designation from those
4 passages, Micron has refused to do so.
5 II. BACKGROUND
6 The legal bills Micron has produced in support of its claim for attorneys’ fees damages
7 reveal that Micron’s attorneys prepared numerous documents for the FTC and engaged in
8 numerous communications with the FTC during the FTC’s proceedings against Rambus. For
9 example, tasks listed on those legal bills include:
10
11 REDACTED
12
13
14
15
16
17 REDACTED
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
REDACTED
27
28
4030332.! — 3 —
Motion to Compel Micron’s Production of 30(b)(6) Witness on Communications with FTC CASE NOS. CV-00-20905 RMW, C05-00334 RMW, C05-002298 RMW, C06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 587 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 6 of 11
1 REDACTED
2
3 See Exh. A (Micron attorney bills). Micron designated the entirety of these attorneys’ bills as
4 “Confidential - Outside Counsel Only.” See Id.
5 In their October 31, 2007 opposition to Rambus’s motions for summary adjudication,
6 Micron’s counsel for the first time asked Judge Whyte to find that the FTC’s decision was
7 admissible under Rule 803(8)(C). See Luedtke Decl. ¶ 3 & Exh. B at 4 (opposition brief). On
8 November 15, 2007, Rambus’s counsel served Micron with a deposition notice pursuant to
9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), requesting a witness to testify on November 26, 2007
10 about Micron’s attorneys’ submissions to and communications with the FTC in connection with
11 the FTC’s investigation of Rambus. See Exh. C (deposition notice). On November 15, Rambus’s
12 counsel also sent Micron’s counsel a letter objecting to the confidentiality designations on the
13 passages from Micron’s attorney bills quoted in Rambus’s deposition notice, most of which are
14 quoted above. See Exh. D (November 15 letter). Rambus’s counsel followed up on the
15 deposition notice with a letter on November 21, 2007. See Exh. E (November 21 letter). On
16 November 26, 2007 Micron served objections to the deposition notice. See Exh. F (Micron
17 objections). Rambus’s counsel responded to those objections in a letter on November 27, 2007.
18 See Exh. G (November 27 letter). The parties had a telephonic meet and confer on November 29,
19 2007. See Luedtke Decl. ¶ 9. Counsel discussed their disagreements and Rambus answered
20 Micron’s questions, but the parties were unable to reach agreement.2 Micron continues to refuse
21 to produce a witness and has not yet removed the confidentiality designations. See Luedtke Decl.
22 ¶9.
23
24
25
26
27 2 During the meet and confer, Rambus agreed to drop its request for information about the
28 “current location” of the documents submitted to the FTC. See Luedtke Decl. ¶ 8.
4030332.1 - 4 -
Motion to Compel Micron’s Production of 30(b)(6) Witness on Communications with FTC
CASE NOS. CV-00-20905 RMW, C05-00334 RMW, C05-002298 RMW, C06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 587 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 7 of 11
III. ARGUMENT
A. Micron Should Be Compelled to Produce a Witness on Its Attorneys’
2 Submissions to and Communications with the FTC Because that Information Is Relevant to the Reasonableness of Micron’s Damages Claims.
4 Micron seeks to recover as damages the legal fees it paid for its attorneys’ submissions to
5 and communications with the FTC. Information about what those submissions and
6 communications involved and why they were undertaken is clearly relevant to determining
7 whether the claimed legal fees are reasonable. It is also relevant to whether the fees were
8 proximately caused by Rambus’s alleged unlawful conduct, or rather reflected voluntary choices
9 by Micron. See Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters,
10 459 U.S. 519, 532-33 (1983) (explaining that the principle of proximate cause governs what
11 damages are available in antitrust actions). Rambus is entitled to the deposition sought for this
12 reason alone. Fitzgeraldv. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 634 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (ordering compliance
13 with discovery request seeking information “relevant in determining. . . causation for. . . or the
14 magnitude of the alleged” damages).
15 B. Micron Should Be Compelled to Produce a Witness on Its Attorneys’
Submissions to and Communications with the FTC Because They Are
16 Relevant to a Critical Evidentiary Question for the January 22 Trial.
17 Micron seeks to have the FTC Opinion admitted into evidence in the January 22 trial
18 under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. Whether that exception applies depends at
19 least in part on whether the FTC proceedings were trustworthy. If Micron’s attorneys influenced
20 the FTC proceedings, that bears directly on the proceedings’ trustworthiness, as one of the factors
21 courts look at in evaluating trustworthiness is extent to which agency findings are based on
22 “material. . . supplied by persons with an interest in the outcome of the proceeding.” Coleman,
23 306 F.3d at 1342 n.4. Because Micron’s attorneys’ submissions to and communications with the
24 FTC are thus highly relevant, Rambus is entitled to discovery about them.
25 The hearsay exception for public records is set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence
26 803(8)(C), which provides:
27 Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of
28 public offices or agencies, setting forth. . . (C) in civil actions.
4030332 1 — 5 —
Motion to Compel Micron’s Production of 30(b)(6) Witness on Communications with FTC CASE NOS. CV-00-20905 RMW, C05-00334 RMW, C05-002298 RMW, C06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 587 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 8 of 11
factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to
1 authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other
circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.
2
Rambus has argued that the FTC Opinion is not a “report... setting forth... factual findings
3
resulting from an investigation” under Rule 803(8)(C). See, e.g., Rambus’s Reply Mem. ISO 4
Mot. S.J. No. 1 at 5. If the Court were to disagree, however, the Opinion’s admissibility would 5
depend on its trustworthiness. It would be Rambus’s burden to demonstrate a lack of
6
trustworthiness. Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 858 (9th Cir. 1999) (Trial courts 7
“may presume that public records are authentic and trustworthy,” and “[t]he burden of
8
establishing otherwise falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with
enough negative factors to persuade a court that a report should not be admitted.”)3
10
The Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 803(8) provides a nonexclusive list of factors
11
that “may be of assistance” in evaluating trustworthiness: “(1) the timeliness of the investigation;
12
13 (2) the special skill or experience of the official; (3) whether a hearing was held and the level at
14 which conducted; [and] (4) possible motivation problems.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(C) Advisory Committee’s Note. Courts have articulated additional factors for evaluating trustworthiness,
15
including:
16
(2) The extent to which the agency findings are based upon or are
17 the product of proceedings pervaded by receipts of substantial
amounts of material which would not be admissible in evidence
18 (e.g., hearsay, confidential communications, ex parte evidence), and
the extent to which such material is supplied by persons with an
19 interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
20 (3) If the findings are products of hearings, the extent to which
appropriate safeguards were used (Administrative Procedure Act,
21 Due Process), and the extent to which the investigation complied
22 with all applicable agency regulations and procedures.
23
(6) The extent to which the findings are based upon findings of
24 another investigative body or tribunal which is itself vulnerable as a
2 result of trustworthiness evaluation.
26 Coleman, 306 F.3d at 1342 n.4.
27 In this brief all internal quotation marks and citations are omitted and emphases are added
28 unless otherwise specified.
4030332.1 — 6 —
Motion to Compel Micron’s Production of 30(b)(6) Witness on Communications with FTC CASE NOS. CV-00-20905 RMW. C05-00334 RMW, C05-002298 RMW, C06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 587 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 9 of 11
1 Pursuant to these standards, evidence that the FTC opinion was based on “confidential
2 communications” or “cx parte evidence” from “persons with an interest in the outcome of the
3 proceeding” could suggest that the opinion is not trustworthy enough to be admissible under Rule
4 803(8)(C). Id. Information about what sorts of communications Micron’s attorneys—clearly
5 people “with an interest in the outcome”—had with the FTC is thus directly relevant.
6 Moreover, if the FTC Opinion were admitted into evidence, its reliability would be an
7 issue at trial. Rambus is thus also entitled to discovery about Microns’ attorneys’
8 communications with the FTC because that is “information which may. . . relate to the credibility
9 of. . . evidence in the case.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal.
10 1998) (ordering requested discovery to proceed).
11 C. Micron Should Be Compelled to Remove the Confidentiality Designations from the Passages in Its Attorneys’ Bills Quoted in Rambus’s Deposition
12 Notice.
13 Micron’s “Outside Council Only” (“OCO”) confidentiality designations of the language
14 in the attorneys’ bills at issue do not meet the strict requirements of the Protective Order and
15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and should be deemed invalid. The Protective Order
16 provides that “[t]o the fullest extent possible, any Disclosing Party shall narrowly tailor any
17 request to designate as... ‘CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY’ any documents,
18 testimony, information, and physical objects produced in these actions.” Protective Order at 2.
19 OCO “is the highest level of confidentiality set forth in the protective order.” Order Granting in
20 Part Rambus’s Mot. to Remove Samsung’s Improper Confidentiality Designations at 2 (Exh. I).
21 Micron’s confidentiality designations of the language in its attorneys’ bills regarding FTC-related
22 activities are not “narrowly tailor[ed]” and do not meet the requirements for designation as OCO.
23 Paragraph 20 sets forth the stringent requirements for OCO designations:
24 Any Disclosing Party may designate as “CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
25 ONLY” documents, testimony, information, or physical object (or portion thereof). . . if such Disclosing Party reasonably and in good faith believes such
26 document, testimony, information or physical object (or portion thereof) (1) constitutes or contains confidential information so commercially sensitive that
27
28 ‘ The Protective Order is Exhibit H to the Luedtke Declaration.
4030332.1 — 7 —
Motion to Compel Micron’s Production of 30(b)(6) Witness on Communications with FTC CASE NOS. CV-00-20905 RMW. C05-00334 RMW, C05-002298 RMW, C06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 587 Filed 11/30/2007 Page 10 of 11 access to the information must be limited to outside counsel only and that the
protections afforded by the “Special Confidential / Highly Confidential” category
2 are insufficient to adequately protect the interests of the Disclosing Party and (2) comprises:
3 (a) license agreements and licensing discussions, meetings, or negotiations;
4 (b) schematics;
5 (c) detailed technical design, testing, or manufacturing information;
(d) detailed sales, royalty, and/or pricing information dated, created, or
6 revised after December 31, 2001;
(e) detailed cost of manufacturing, profit, market share and/or margin
7 information dated, created, or revised after December 31, 2001; and/or
(f) other documents, testimony, information, or physical objects (or
8 portions thereof) so designated by court order, upon stipulation of the Producing
and Receiving Parties or upon noticed motion for good cause shown, pursuant to
this Protective Order.
10 Protective Order, ¶ 20 (emphasis added).5
11 Under the Protective Order, Micron, as the designating party, carries “the burden of proof
of demonstrating that the challenged designation is proper.” Protective Order, ¶ 39. This is 13 consistent with Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the party
14 seeking protection for documents to show “good cause” and “specific prejudice or harm that will
15 result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
16 .
1130 (9th Cir. 2003). road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or
17 articulated reasoning do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D.
18 304, 308 (N.D. Cal. 2005). This burden applies even if the documents “are produced pursuant to
19 a stipulated protective order.” Id. A “party who has never made a good cause showing under
20 .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) justifying initial protection of [disputed documents] may not rely solely on
21 the protective order to justify refusal when there is a reasonable request for disclosure.” Verizon
22
Information may be designated as “SPECIAL CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
23 CONFIDENTIAL” if a “Disclosing Party reasonably and in good faith believes such [material] constitutes or contains confidential commercially sensitive information, that if disclosed to a
24 competitor, would likely be misappropriated for its economic value or utilized to obtain unfair competitive advantage.” Protective Order, ¶ 19. Information may be designated as
25 “CONFIDENTIAL” if the “Disclosing Party reasonably and in good faith believes such [material] constitutes or contains information that is non-public and contains commercially or
26 personally sensitive or proprietary information.” Id. ¶ 18. Under the Protective Order, each party may designate no more than six in-house officers or employees to have access to “SPECIAL
27 CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” information. Id. ¶ 29(b). There is no limit on the number of officers or employees who may have access to “CONFIDENTIAL” materials as
28 long as they meet the other requirements for access to confidential materials. Id. ¶28(e).
4030332.1 — 8 -
Motion to Compel Micron’s Production of 30(b)(6) Witness on Communications with FTC
CASE NOS. CV-0O-20905 RMW, C05-00334 RMW, C05-002298 RMW, C06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 587
Filed 11/30/2007 Page 11 of 11
1 Calif Inc. v. RonaldA. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P., 214 F.R.D. 583, 586 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Thus,
2 Micron bears the burden to demonstrate that its OCO designations are warranted under Rule
3 26(c).
4 Micron cannot satisfy its burden to demonstrate that its blanket OCO designation of its
5 legal bills is proper, and certainly cannot demonstrate that OCO designation of the language from
6 those bills quoted in Rambus’s deposition notice is proper. Quoted passages do not “constitute[]
7 or contain[j confidential information so commercially sensitive that access to the information
8 must be limited to outside counsel only and that the protections afforded by the ‘Special
9 Confidential / Highly Confidential’ category are insufficient” to protect Micron’s interests.
10 Protective Order, ¶ 20. Moreover, Micron cannot demonstrate that the quoted language falls
11 within one or more of the enumerated categories of information entitled to OCO protection:
12 licensing negotiations, schematics, detailed technical information, detailed sales and royalty
13 information dated after December 31, 2001, and detailed cost of manufacturing or profit
14 information dated after December 31, 2001. Id. Micron also cannot show, as it must, “good
15 cause” and “specific prejudice or harm that will result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz,
16 331 F.3dat 1130.
From IV Board/Longusa...thank you Longusa:
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=141483&pt=msg&mid=3514019
Courtroom as full as I’ve seen w/ lawyers.
Attendees:
R: Stone, Perry, Leudtke, Peter Dutry (sp?), Miriam Kim, 2 Corp lawyers
S: Healey, Powers, Claire Goldstein
H: Nissly, Ted Allen, Ruby (O’Rourke in gallery)
M: Barza, Favreau, Allen
N: Sutcliff
Cheryl, Tdox, and myself were there, along with Michael Cohen and Joel Rosenblatt.
The oral arguments were very much the same as in the motions and replies, so I’ll just relate the things that struck me as important in each topic (as well as in a 4+ hour session, to much to do play by play). No decisions were made final at the session.
HJW was in a more relaxed mood today, and opened with a smile and a joke: “so you’re all here to tell me you’ve settled right?”
FTC CE / PF
Barza of M opened with a chart (we could not see) of the first few sentences of the Congressional amendment on the FTC scope, and argued sentence construction such that HJW had it right the first time last year, and not only nothing wrong with FTC being both prosecutor and judge, that there were precedents on it. Stone argued the opposite. Barza wanted the opportunity to brief the topic as somehow, M had not done so yet.
HJW allowed M to brief on it, due Dec. 3, R reply due Dec. 10; will be discussed again at Dec. 13 CMC. So no final decision on it until after then.
As part of this interchange, the various rulings in R cases so far same up. The takeaway for me was that Stone, based on post-trial briefing schedule, does not expect a decision from HJR in De until March or so.
R MSJ 1: Monopolization
Perry argued first for R and the thrust was ‘MM (cartel) argue that there were close subst. tech at the time of JEDEC; if so, then R did not have monopoly power, and if not, then there could be no monopolistic market power effects of R since there was no choice.
He argued that both performance and cost must be considered. Gilbert, apparently a cartel expert witness, developed the equation that to be a substitute, a tech must meet V1 – R1 ~= V2 – R2, where the V’s are the value of the tech’s in the market, and R’s are the royalties. He then apparently assumed R2 (the subst. tech royalty) is 0. Stone called them on this as no work was done by the cartel on costs, and Barza made the argument that it is normal and right to assume that all technologies are free unless there is a generally known royalty. HJW caught this too and asked ‘isn’t this counter common sense to assume free’. Perry closed his part with summary that must show both technological and cost subst. info, and these were not shown. Stone made the final point that the assumption of free is plain wrong, especially where the market situation is such that the creation of the technologies and the manufacture of them are by separate entities, and not in a cross-license situation.
(net net for me was that Barza made one of the more inane arguments I’ve heard yet, and I don’t think it will carry the day at trial)
R MSJ 2: Duty (to disclose at JEDEC)
This is the one where HJW question last night was ‘isn’t not granting the MSJ the same as reversing my decision in H Phase I.
Perry argued that since resolved in H Phase I, no need to do again and can be done via SJ. Rob Becker argued for M and said many things had changed in the time since, such as FTC ruling and BRCM vs QCOM case where FTC vs R was cited; as well as have taken some new depositions with opinion that there was a duty. Perry argued that the total of all depositions will reveal opinions all over the map, so nothing new.
(would seem to me unlikely for HJW to reverse himself here)
R MSJ 3, 4, 5: Fraud, Reliance, Negligent Misrepresentation
The Fraud claims and MSJ seem to revolve around R supposedly having knowledge of what patents and claims reading on JEDEC would issue and not disclosing them (not really sure here – didn’t follow this well.) Miriam Kim argued for R (my impression was that she was relatively inexperienced and did not come across as convincing). She argued that patent issuance is under PTO control, not R, so no Fraud. Ted Allen for H argued for the cartel and argued that due to R bad faith, there is fraud.
Perry argued the Reliance MSJ. His argument was that none of the cartel could produce anyone who had actually heard what R said at JEDEC, or had seen R’s JEDEC withdrawal letter, so therefore could not be any reliance. Allen argued that M and H had many people who attended and heard R ½-truths. Perry said none of them are on the witness list, so irrelevant. Perry also stated, and cartel did not refute, that R’s JEDEC withdrawal letter (which inadvertently did not include 1 of R’s patents I the list provided that read on the JEDEC standard) was filed by JEDEC when received, and never distributed to members. It only came to light as part of litigation discovery years later, so could not be the source of any reliance.
An interesting point that came up during this is that Perry, from his argument above, asked HJW to bar the cartel from saying at trial ‘we heard ½ truths or and were mislead or were mislead by the letter. (This would be a significant outcome IMO).
MSJ 5 apparently is all about the JEDEC withdrawal letter and the missing patent in the list. Cartel position is that a patent was missing, so QED negligent misrepresentation. R argues inadvertent. At one point here, HJW asked the cartel attorney ‘who saw the letter?’. Cartel avoided an answer.
(my take is that R had good arguments on 4 & 5, but needs to do better on 3)
R MSJ 6: (Patent) Prosecution Laches
This is about R intentionally delaying (or not) patent process so as to ambush JEDEC, and thus should be prevented from asserting the patents.
The parties agreed that this was only applicable to the F-H patents, not Ware.
Peter Dutry argued for R that there is no evidence that R intentionally gamed the system, and that cartel so-called evidence actually shows that R was prosecuting their patents continuously to get them issued correctly and completely. Just because lengthy is not evidence of laches; rather is evidence of many many complex patentable concepts.
(Michael’s thought is that R timeline length is largely the result of the original R mgmt team not realizing how broad the R inventions were until Karp joined. The patent work then to fully flesh out the claims of inventions dates to him. We’ll see if R argues ‘x years of mgmt incompetence’ as a defense, or as a part of the timeline. Not illegal, just tragic.).
Favreau of M team argued for cartel and paints the picture as 8 years to get from original filing to claims covering JEDEC, so laches indicated. HJW asked if the claim is based on 1990-1998, and cartel says out to 1999 to see the trap fully sprung. Favreau used R’s continuations and divisionals as evidence of wrong-doing instead of evidence of broad invention.
(my take as that R had a good argument here. Will be interesting to see if/how Karp joining R comes into this)
Samsung Escape Attempt (formally known as Request to Bifurcate)
This was the 1st after-lunch topic. (thanks for the chowder Tdox!)
HJW opened and commented that he still thinks consolidation is the best way to proceed. He acknowledged that there were some issues he saw:
S case has no jury issues, and others do
w.r.t. spoliation, has been resolved vs H, but not the others, and they might bring up in cross-examination
re antitrust claims, different for H, where already found to infringe – do we assume S, M, N also infringe for these claims?
HJW says will be in better position to make final decision on Dec. 13 when claims to be tried will be completely known.
Healey argued for S and spoke a long list of ‘uniquenesses’ to the S case, including that S and R had several contracts between them that affect how to rule on what happened between them. As part of this, Healey agreed that S would commit to not recall witnesses or experts – would rather depend on just including the record of the consol case (so assuming he goes after). He also said Mosaid not relevant to the others (interesting twist).
Stone argues that there are more overlaps than differences, and without consolidation, would replay the same trial 4 times; with each saying we have new evidence / theories based on what didn’t work in the one previous. He also said M should be bound by De result on spoliation – just one shot each.
HJW finished with asking each to prepare letter with what issues will prejudice them in a consolidated trial. He will then discuss on 13th and come to final decision. He also said that there will be a trial on Jan 22 – if not consolidated, it will be H.
S Steinberg Issue
HJW asked about this as he had converted the Steinberg issue to a request for a MSJ. S and R said they had conferred and set a briefing schedule based on S-unique issue case coming after consolidated trial. Thus schedule for this is June / July 2008 briefings and Aug 2008 hearing. HJW looked surprised that the schedule was out so far. Stone read his reaction and suggested it also be part of the discussion on the Dec 13th; HJW agreed.
Rebuttal Witness Dispute
This came about as H has not followed schedule of witness disclosure completely. I was too burned out to follow well. HJW said too late for new depositions to be added; he’ll decide when we get there what witnesses can be allowed.
Close
HJW asked if anyone had any other topics. And of course since Ruby of H was there, he stood and brought up a schedule conflict with Jan 22!!!! I swear that is his only purpose. HJW said trial is Jan 22.
Then an issue came up about ‘30b-6’ witnesses to authenticate documents. HJW came up with a very common sense approach not needing witnesses and all agreed.
HJW ended with another plea for the parties to settle, bringing up again the points that the parties need each other for success, and costs will continue to be high for continuing the litigation track.
And it finally ended. Especially bad on the most of the attorneys, who had to go catch planes on the day before ThanksgivingL
My Takes
Given what HJW said in his MSJ tentative rulings that he must give the benefit of the doubt to the non-moving party, I expect HJW will likely continue to deny most of the R MSJ’s, but without prejudice; then we will see the same issues at trial, where IMO R will likely prevail given what I heard today. I do think that he stays with his current FTC CE/PF ruling, as well as his previous Duty ruling.
Whether he stays with consolidation I can’t say. But if not, the H trial will occur Jan 22, thereby putting the pressure 1st on H. I would then expect S to be 2nd, as it would be a bench trial and thus quick to do. This gives us the most important 2 players. IMO R will settle with M last or not at all, as keeping M in the cases is a must to keep the AT no-arbitration ruling in place. We’ll see on Dec 20 whether HJK sets an AT date. Given the interchange w/ Cotchett last time, I will be very surprised if he does not come with chapter and verse on all things HJK needs to set a date.
Dec 13 will be another ‘fun’ session.
Regards and Happy Thanksgiving
WONDERFUL WORK...THANK YOU
DJ Rambus: Trustee Waives Existing Events Of Defaults On Notes DOW JONES NEWSWIRES Rambus Inc. (RMBS) on Monday disclosed that the trustee for its Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due Feb. 1, 2010, waived all existing events of default and rescinded an acceleration of the notes. The Los Altos, Calif.-based memory chipmaker said it received notice of the waiver of default on Thursday from the U.S. Bank National Association, its trustee. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the note indicates the trustee had received direction from holders holding a majority of the principal amount of the notes outstanding to waive all existing events of defaults and rescind their acceleration. Rambus shares closed Friday at $18.19. -Jared A. Favole, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9207; jared.favole@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones Newswires September 24, 2007 07:00 ET (11:00 GMT) Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones Company, Inc.
Samsung Destroyed Documents in their MOSAID Patent Suit...
Maybe Rambus wants to show that Sammy did so with Rambus also...:
MOSAID Technologies Incorporated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Court Awards MOSAID Monetary Sanctions in Lawsuit Against Samsung
OTTAWA, Ontario – September 2, 2004 – MOSAID Technologies Incorporated (TSX:MSD) today announced that Magistrate Judge Hedges has ordered Samsung pay to MOSAID a total of USD $566,839.97 in fees and costs related to MOSAID’s successful sanctions motion against Samsung. The Court also prescribed the text of the adverse jury instruction that the jury will receive in the trial of the case relating to Samsung’s failure to produce emails in the case.
A copy of the Court’s Order and Opinion, together with MOSAID’s Motion, is available at http://www.mosaid.com/licensing/samsung_litigation_update.htm
The sanctions granted today are in addition to the order granted by Judge Hedges on July 8, 2004 imposing two other sanctions requested by MOSAID against Samsung: an order that proof of infringement by MOSAID of certain representative Samsung parts of MOSAID's choosing will determine infringement of all Samsung parts; and an order that Samsung is precluded from challenging MOSAID's expert evidence as to the operation of Samsung parts, to the extent that such challenges rest on any assumptions made in performing analysis on representative parts.
http://www.mosaid.com/corporate/investor-relations/litigation-samsung.php
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MOSAID Settles Samsung Patent Litigation
World’s Largest DRAM Producer Licenses MOSAID Patent Portfolio
OTTAWA, Ontario – January 18, 2005 – MOSAID Technologies Incorporated (TSX:MSD) today announced that it has settled its ongoing patent litigation with Samsung Electronics Co., in the District Court of New Jersey, and that Samsung has licensed the MOSAID patent portfolio.
In September 2001, MOSAID sued Samsung for infringement of seven MOSAID patents. Today MOSAID announced that it has signed an agreement with Samsung, which settles this litigation and grants Samsung a license to the MOSAID patent portfolio. Under the terms of settlement, Samsung will receive a five year license to the entire MOSAID patent portfolio. Samsung will also receive a license to four MOSAID patent families filed prior to 2000 for the lives of the patents. Payments for the license will be spread over the five year term of the license. Under the terms of the agreement financial details are to be kept confidential.
“This is a major step forward for our patent licensing program,” said Jim Skippen, Senior Vice President, Patent Licensing and General Counsel of MOSAID. “Now that Samsung, the world’s largest DRAM supplier, has settled with MOSAID, we believe it is more likely that the remaining unlicensed DRAM companies will follow suit. This license clearly confirms the strength of our patent portfolio, which contains over 530 issued and pending patents. And finally, the five year term associated with most of the patents being licensed to Samsung under this agreement is consistent with our strategy of making our patent licensing program renewable and ongoing.”
“The signing of this license with Samsung is our most significant licensing achievement to date,” said George Cwynar, President and Chief Executive Officer of MOSAID. “This represents a watershed event for MOSAID, confirming the potential we envisaged when we launched our patent licensing program as a key strategic initiative six years ago. It also validates our use of litigation when necessary to obtain fair licensing terms. We prefer to settle licenses in the boardroom, but we will pursue our rights in court if necessary. This agreement with Samsung better positions us to assert our patents and provides ongoing financial strength and flexibility to maximize shareholder return.”
Samsung joins many other major DRAM and semiconductor manufacturers who have already licensed MOSAID’s patent portfolio, including Fujitsu, NEC, Toshiba, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, Oki Electric, Matsushita, Winbond Electronics, Sony Corporation and Royal Philips Electronics.
Settlement of MOSAID’s litigation with Samsung does not affect MOSAID’s ongoing patent litigation with Infineon Technologies.
-- MORE --
MOSAID Settles Samsung Patent Litigation Page 2
With respect to financial guidance, the Samsung agreement impacts the Company’s expected results for its third quarter and the fiscal year. Driven principally by the incremental revenues from Samsung, the Company now forecasts revenues in Q3 fiscal 2005 of $16.5 to 17 million versus its previous guidance of $4 to 4.5 million. For the fiscal year, revenues are expected to be $44.5 to 45 million versus previous guidance of $30 to 32 million. Earnings are now expected to be $33.5 to 34 million for Q3 fiscal 2005 versus previous guidance of a loss of $5 to 6 million. However, this earnings forecast is impacted by the recognition of the Company’s remaining income tax asset, which is more likely than not to be utilized. Without this adjustment, earnings for Q3 would be $5 to 5.5 million. For the fiscal year, earnings of $34.5 to 35 million are now forecast, versus previous guidance of a loss of $6 to7 million.
Conference Call and Webcast
Management will hold a conference call and webcast today Tuesday, January 18, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. (ET). Participants wishing to access the conference call should dial 1-800-814-4859. The conference call will also be webcast live at www.mosaid.com and www.newswire.ca, and subsequently archived on MOSAID’s web site. A rebroadcast of the conference call will be available until midnight on Tuesday, January 25, 2005. To access the rebroadcast, please dial 1-877-289-8525 and enter the passcode 21109939#.
About MOSAID
MOSAID Technologies Incorporated makes memory better through the development and licensing of intellectual property and the supply of memory test and analysis systems to semiconductor manufacturers, foundries and fabless semiconductor companies around the world.
Founded in 1975, MOSAID is based in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, with offices in Santa Clara, California; Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K; and Tokyo, Japan. For more information, visit the Company's web site at www.mosaid.com.
Forward Looking Information
This document may contain forward-looking statements relating to the Company’s operations or to the environment in which the Company operates. Such statements are based on current expectations that are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and/or beyond MOSAID’s control. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements, due to factors such as customer demand and timing of purchasing decisions, product and business mix, competitive products, pricing pressures as well as general economic and industry conditions. MOSAID assumes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those reflected in any forward-looking statements. Additional information identifying risks and uncertainties is contained in other public filings with the Ontario Securities Commission.
For more information, please contact:
Investor Inquiries
Richard Boadway
Executive VP and CFO
613-599-9539 x1202
boadway@mosaid.com
Media Inquiries
Sara Haskill
Communications Specialist
613-599-9539 x1228
haskill@mosaid.com
OR MAYBE THEY HAVE ALL THOSE WONDERFUL EMAILS...BUT AREN'T TELLING, OR SHOWING?
TJ,
I believe in this ruthless environment of international competition; liberal stock options (short of abuse) were a necessary evil to preserve the intellectual capital required for Rambus cutting edge technology. I will be greatly pleased when we emerge from this backdating issue untarnished and ready to meet the challenges of butt kicking litigation and/or settlements. Hold it...I'm getting ahead of myself...but then again...I have been ahead of myself for 7 years!
Regarding court reporting...it is a true pleasure to give back to this community. "I can't say it enough." I had a 6 to 9 months stretch until about 2 months ago where I pretty much only read IHUB to stay tuned. That ability to get so much with so little reading is in part, a good part, due to your efforts. Thank you.
stratertele
Rambus Provides Update Regarding Independent Review of Past Stock Option Practices
Special Litigation Committee Final Report Submitted to the Court in Derivative Suit
LOS ALTOS, Calif., Aug 24, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS) today announced that the Special Litigation Committee ("SLC") established by the Company's Board of Directors has concluded its review of claims relating to stock option practices that are asserted in derivative actions against a number of present and former officers and directors of the Company.
As previously announced, after a comprehensive investigation, which included a review of over 200 stock option grants, 1.5 million emails and other documents, and over 50 interviews with executive officers, directors, employees and advisors, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors concluded that a number of stock options granted to its employees had been misdated. The Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee to determine how the Company should respond to the derivative actions which had been filed in the name of the Company.
The SLC was composed of two independent directors, J. Thomas Bentley and Abraham D. Sofaer, and it conducted its review with the assistance of independent counsel.
After an extensive review and subject to the settlements described below, the SLC has determined that all claims should be terminated and dismissed against the named defendants in the derivative actions with the exception of claims against Ed Larsen, who served as vice president, Human Resources from September 1996 until December 1999, and then senior vice president, Administration until July 2004. The SLC has determined that the claims asserted against Mr. Larsen should continue to be maintained in the consolidated derivative action where Mr. Larsen is named as a defendant. The SLC intends to assert control over the litigation of that consolidated action.
The SLC has entered into settlement agreements with certain former officers of the Company. The settlements with these individuals are conditioned upon the dismissal of the claims asserted against them in the derivative actions. The aggregate value of the settlements exceeds $6.5 million in cash and cash equivalents as well as substantial additional value to the Company relating to the relinquishment of claims to over 2.7 million stock options.
The written report setting out the findings of the SLC has been filed with the Honorable Jeremy Fogel in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The conclusions of the SLC are subject to review by the court.
Rambus management is cooperating fully with the SLC and continues to work with appropriate legal and accounting advisors to implement a number of remedial measures regarding awards of equity compensation.
About Rambus Inc.
Rambus is one of the world's premier technology licensing companies specializing in the invention and design of high-speed chip architectures. Additional information is available at www.rambus.com.
RMBSLN
SOURCE: Rambus Inc.
Rambus Inc.
Linda Ashmore, 650-947-5411
lashmore@rambus.com
Copyright Business Wire 2007
News Provided by COMTEX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe click here
http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/unsubscribe.cfm?companyID=RMBS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service provided by Shareholder.com.
Thank you prinz_... (From IV)
Rambus Inside ?
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9757843-7.html
From IV (thank you NukeJohn):
By: NukeJohn Send PM Profile Ignore Recommend Add To Favorites
Posted as a reply to msg 101682 by duhpepsi
Re: CAFC - Court Activity - some details
duhpepsi,
It was good seeing you again.....I don't think I have seen you since Judge Jordon declined to move the Rambus case out of DE (when Rambus was wanting to move it to NDCA and Micron was wanting to make it a RICO case and move it to EDVA). That was an excellent report you put together. I encourage anyone who has a significant investment in Rambus to buy the CAFC audio tape.
I just got back from dinner with business associates and I have tons of work to do tonight, but I will give you a few highlights. First, this morning when I was thinking about the situation in DE and the fact that the Rambus case had been reassigned to Judge Robinson, it hit me like a light bulb going off....Judge Farnan, who I knew was a visiting judge at the CAFC during August, must be assigned the Samsung v Rambus case. That was why he had to recuse himself from the DE case, but he couldn't divulge that he was recusing himself for this reason because that would reveal that he was hearing this case (and the CAFC doesn't reveal to anyone who is hearing the case until the morning of the case). Now it is clear why the DE case was reassigned to Judge Robinson.
For those of you who don't know the status of the DE case, from a recent docket entry it appears that the spoliation case is still on for October 15th. Furthermore, after hearing today's arguments, it is my humble opinion that we will have a favorable ruling from the CAFC much sooner than I originally thought, possibly within the next 2 weeks. Therefore, when Judge Robinson starts this case she will have the benefit of knowing that the CAFC neutered Judge Payne's decision, and she will have Judge Whyte's spoliation case to refer to as she marches through her own spoliation trial. Also, IMO, it was no accident that Judge Farnan was assigned to this case. It was as if the CAFC wanted to make sure that a representative of the DE court knew what had transpired in the EDVA (but I could be reading too much into this coincidence).
In court today were about 12 Rambus investors, most of whom I knew or had seen at previous trials in DE, the FTC, or EDVA. To a person, they all thought that Taranto did extremely well. He did have a couple of minor areas where I thought he was off stride, like the when Judge Rader first asked him if Rambus was forum shopping, but after about 10-15 seconds he recovered very nicely and answered the question with..."yes your honor, we were trying to avoid Payne, just like the Micron, Infineon and Samsung were trying to appear before Payne in every case". It was if he was saying (and I'm definitely paraphrasing here)...."do you blame us for wanting to get away from a court where verdicts aren't based on the facts?" To me, Judge Rader seemed to appreciate the honesty of Taranto. Although Healy did his best with the case he had....his arguments were not persuasive. At the very start of Healy's prepared remarks, Judge Rader interrupted him and also accused Samsung of forum shopping and Healy went off on a long convoluted answer ...and all during this time Judge Rader's jaw was clenched and you could see his facial muscles jutting out, as if he couldn't believe what he was hearing.
During the questioning....Judge Rader asked Healy on several occasions (four I think)...."why are we still here?" The arguments Healy used about section 285 and how it was legitimate for Judge Payne to use this verdict to place sanctions on Rambus were non persuasive (and I think contrary to law...but IANAL). On one occasion, Judge Rader asked why they needed the CE effect of Payne's ruling....He asked "why can't the same spoliation evidence be presented to Judge Robinson and Judge Whyte?" IMO, there was no good answer......and I can't even remember what Healy said (I had stopped taking notes by now).
Judge Farnan only asked a couple of questions about Section 285. For the benefit of everyone...here is a link that explains Section 285.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_35/Chapter_29/Section_285
As you can see ...it is one simple sentence and it is exclusively about attorneys fees for exceptional cases....and it does not even discuss ways that this can be used for "sanctions"...which is what Payne attempted to do. Much of today's arguments centered around this.
Judge Schall's questions centered around the payment of attorney's fees. To Rambus he asked...."did you write a check?" "Did you send it to Samsung or tell them it was ready?" (note: I am not a whiz bang court reporter like longusa and I am doing this from memory, so I may not have the quotes verbatim, but you can always buy the audio tape). Taranto ansered that Rambus wrote a certified check and told Samsung it was ready for them to pick up. Judge Schall asked Healy if Rambus wrote the check and if so, why didn't they pick it up. Healy answered that Rambus did write the check, but I don't remember exactly how he explained why they didn't pick it up, but to me it sounded disingenous.
It's obvious to me that Judge Rader knows quite a bit about what is going on in various Rambus venues....and he sees through what happened
in the EDVA. Like I said earlier in the post....I don't expect this to be a long ruling (< 5-8 pages), and I now expect the ruling to come much faster than I thought going in.....probably in less than 2-3 weeks.
That's about it....and I won't be able to answer any questions for a couple of days (if then). Bashers...I have the whole lot of you on ignore so you can post BS to your hearts content, and I won't see it. This was a great day for Rambus, and within the next few weeks we could easily get a win in this decision, a win in the the NDCA on CE/PF, and possibly, if Rambus and PwC gets off their behinds....a restatement. Also, FWIW, Samsung and Nanya have to be evaluating recent court developments and trying to decide if things get better as time passes...or get much worse. I know what I believe....and I also know that the Koreans and the Tiawanese are not stupid. Also, FWIW, I think Micron is just SOL...there is no hope for them to settle with Rambus...and the clock on the AT case is ticking. Likewise, I don't think Rambus can settle at this point in time with Hynix, as Rambus wants to finish Phase 3 of the infringement trial and get it certified. Plus, Tabrezi was such a central figure in the AT case....Rambus needs to leave Hynix in the AT case for the time being. If suitable settlements don't occur in a timely fashion, then, if I were Rambus, I would just refuse to license anyone on DDR2 and DDR3 and just force the entire industry to XDR (if the industry wants to use Rambus IP, they must pay to play).
JMHO,
NJ
FROM IV (thank you twobytebus):
CAFC Audio Link (24 hours after argument)
It's interesting to note that the CAFC has an audio link where they say that MP3 files of the arguments are available 24 hours after the arguments take place.
Check here:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oralarguments/
It says that the audio will be available for cases argued in Courtrooms 201 & 203.
As we can see below, Rambus's case will be argued tomorrow in Courtoom 201:
<<**Panel C: Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 201
2006-1579 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS V RAMBUS [argued]
7/12/2007 10:00 am Samsung vs Rambus argued at the CAFC --- note ---
this entry revised to aug - 7 2007
http://www.fedcir.gov/calendar.html >>
So, it looks like we'll have the benefit of hearing Rambus & Samsungs's arguments over the internet not too long after they transpire.
If I had extra time, I was going to try to make it down to DC for the arguments. However, as of right now, it looks as if that probably won't happen. But at least we'll have the benefit of the audio the next day.
Also, I'm not sure who may or may not be there in person -- I believe Nukejohn said he's not going to be able to make it either.
With that being said, I believe the most important thing to know will be who's on the panel. If it's Judges Rader / Bryson & Moore (like the original panel last month before the delay) Rambus longs can relax tomorrow and know that the panel will do what's right -- i.e take the multi-headed Hydra (Payne) completely out of the litigation equation.
Check here to see how bad Payne is. Rambus even asked for his removal from the case -- if for some reason a remand is required. This is a request they do not make flippantly or lightly -- it's a very serious matter.
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/SamsungVsRambus047.pdf
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2007-04-02%20Rambus%20Reply%20Brief.pdf
PS:
The probability of having Judges Rader & Bryson on the same panel on what's said to be a RANDOM draw is less than 1%.
If (that's a big if) Judges Rader & Bryson are still on tomorrow, we can be quite sure that something is up -- i.e. they don't like the stench emenating from Richmond.
I believe at or around $10.26 would be a triple bottom!!!
I also believe a play is 2009 leaps with the pop being in Feb to April 2009 time framedue to the DDRx trial...looking for 45 again? Of course FTC/contracts/or other news could be an earlier catalyst for a pop?
TJ,
The one bit of saving grace here (JMPO) is this information came out April 30th, http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2007/04/obviousness_redux.html .
So I believe this information is incorporated in the current stock price.
JMO
TJ,
However this may be true about the potential for patent rights to be carved away due to the KSR ruling; regarding Rambus DDRx and XDRx patents, are these patents subject to the legal standard of the time of the initial patent applications, divisional applications, issuance of the patients, or when?
stratertele
Today looked like a very organized, slow bleed. I assume someone wants calls cheap for a little pop around earnings, then a slide to $12 to 15 if no good news. My WAG.
1) Does a NASDAQ decision maker know about and understand the behavior of the Cartel, and see how the ramifications of their behavior adversely affected Rambus?
2) Is this (#1 above) the reason for the NASDAQ's willingness to easily make concessions to allow a stay in the options investigation?
3) Would it be productive or counter productive, in meeting Rambus's...and Long's goals, to disclose this information now?
...I don't know!
Thoughts?
IN A DIGITAL WORLD WHERE NET BASED TERMINALS CHARACTERIZE 70% OF THE MARKET, AND TRADITIONAL PCs 30%...where is Rambus's role in the TERMINALs portion of the equation?
Thank you...a fine call.
TJ,
I don't usually laugh at Rambus related posts, but there us a time for laughter...
"Badly done hardly describes it. Appears the sponsors paid off their debt for any campaign contributions by submitting this stinker and now the work of crafting real patent reform legislation will begin anew under adult supervision."
Best,
stratertele
Thank you, one of those gem stories...!!!
I have believed the options scandel is too aggredious to disclose...therefore Rambus will wait to release results after settlement with the cartel. They are avoiding the downside with disclosure. As to the details behind/guiding these events...maybe that is another story all together!!!
The main point....
"MOSAID also announced today that the Company and its investment bankers
are continuing the strategic review of its Semiconductor IP product business,
which designs and licenses semiconductor IP circuit blocks.
The alternatives under consideration include a potential sale of this business."
Humm...
OTTAWA, April 9 /CNW Telbec/ - MOSAID Technologies Incorporated (TSX:MSD)
today announced the appointment of John C. Lindgren as the Company's new
President and Chief Executive Officer, effective immediately. Mr. Lindgren
succeeds George Cwynar, who has served as MOSAID's President and CEO since
1994.
MOSAID also announced the appointment of Carl Schlachte, President and
CEO of ARC International (LSE:ARK), as Chairman of the Board of Directors,
effective immediately. Mr. Schlachte succeeds Thomas I. Csathy, who has served
on MOSAID's board for 16 years. Mr. Csathy was appointed Vice Chairman of the
Board in 1992 and has served as Chairman since 2002.
Richard D. Boadway, Chief Financial Officer since 1997 and Executive Vice
President since 2003, will also be leaving the Company, following the orderly
transfer of his responsibilities.
Mr. Cwynar, Mr. Csathy, and Mr. Boadway will also continue to serve as
Directors on MOSAID's board during a transition period.
"Mr. Lindgren is an internationally experienced executive with a track
record of success in semiconductor patent licensing and litigation," said
Mr. Schlachte. "Since joining MOSAID in November 2006 as Senior Vice President
Patent Licensing, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary after a 20-year
career with Texas Instruments, John has demonstrated the leadership qualities
that are required to take MOSAID forward as a focused intellectual property
company."
Mr. Lindgren was heavily involved in patent licensing for the majority of
his career at Texas Instruments. He was also responsible for company-wide
legal support for the Asia Pacific region and served as Senior Regional
Counsel for Texas Instruments Japan in Tokyo for two years. Prior to that, as
a key member of TI's patent cross-licensing team, Mr. Lindgren helped drive
the licensing strategy that resulted in the collection of over US$2 billion in
royalties. MOSAID also announced today that the Company and its investment bankers
are continuing the strategic review of its Semiconductor IP product business,
which designs and licenses semiconductor IP circuit blocks.
"The alternatives
under consideration include a potential sale of this business."
"I look forward to communicating with MOSAID's shareholders as we embark
on this new phase in the Company's growth," said Mr. Lindgren. "By focusing on
our core patent licensing competencies, I believe we can execute more
efficiently and achieve greater shareholder value. We will also continue our
ongoing review of MOSAID's strategic alternatives."
MOSAID's board expresses its sincere appreciation for the many years of
inspired and dedicated leadership given by Messrs. Cwynar, Boadway and Csathy.
During their tenure, these three executives developed MOSAID into an
internationally recognized and highly profitable intellectual property
development and licensing company.
Mr. Cwynar, one of Canada's longest serving technology executives, joined
MOSAID 13 years ago and guided its transition from a semiconductor memory
design house and tester manufacturing operation into the intellectual property
company it is today. Mr. Csathy, who was named a Director in 1991, led MOSAID
through a formative phase that included its initial public offering in 1993
and continually set and maintained high corporate governance standards.
Mr. Boadway, a key member of the executive team since joining the Company as
CFO in 1997, has provided a very high standard of financial stewardship and
was instrumental in leading MOSAID through the technology downturn in 2001 and
during its re-emergence as a growth-oriented company.
About MOSAID
Are my eyes working OK?
"The court is also influenced by the FTC opinion which, at a minimum, raises doubt as to the likelihood of Rambus's prevailing in Phase III which is a requisite to its recovery of the Phase II award."
Source: Business Wire
"Rambus Receives NASDAQ Notice of Non-Compliance"
On March 1, 2007, Rambus (NASDAQ:RMBS) filed a Form 12(b)-25
with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that it
would be unable to timely file its Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2006. As expected, on March 6, 2007, Rambus
received an additional notice of non-compliance from the Staff
of The NASDAQ Stock Market, in accordance with NASDAQ
Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14), due to the delay in the filing of
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-K"). As previously announced,
Rambus received notices of non-compliance from NASDAQ on August
14, 2006 and November 15, 2006 due to delays in the filing of
the Company's Quarterly Reports on Forms 10-Q for the quarters
ended June 30, 2006 and September 30, 2006 (collectively, the
"Forms 10-Q"), respectively. The Forms 10-Q and 10-K filing
delays are attributable to the fact that Rambus' Audit Committee
is conducting an independent review of the Company's historical
stock option granting practices and related accounting. ...
View Full Press Release and Disclosures:
http://www.schwab.wallst.com/alerts/reports/getReport.asp?YYY20_ty9M1HpQ1xW3WN8KdLQUNG+vC+FpfuyNpbpt...
================================================================
Price Performance
at 4:00PM EST 03/09/2007
Last: $20.30
Change: +0.26
Day High: $20.68
Day Low: $20.12
52 Wk. High: $46.99
52 Wk. Low: $10.25
Volume: 3,858,718
P/E Ratio: 67.67
Price when alert was set: $24.35
DJIA: 12,276.32 +15.62
S&P 500: 1,402.85 +0.96
NASDAQ: 2,387.55 -0.18
Thank you TJ,
Great post!
New AMD Platform Integrates ATI Graphics for The Ultimate Visual Experience(TM) For Windows Vista at an Affordable Price
12:01 AM EST February 28, 2007
AMD (NYSE: AMD) today introduced the AMD 690 series chipset, the company's first chipset to bring together the combined strengths of AMD CPU and platform technology with the industry-leading features of the ATI Radeon(TM) X1250 GPU.
"As a result of the ATI merger, AMD is delivering innovative platforms for the commercial and consumer markets featuring best of breed performance, visual computing experience, energy efficiency and stability," said Dirk Meyer, AMD president and COO. "With the launch of the AMD 690 series chipset, AMD is delivering on the commitment we made to our customers, channel partners and end users to bring to them customer-centric innovation. Our largest global customers are already committed to offering AMD 690 series-based solutions, and more than 30 motherboard designs will be available."
"With its leading image quality and 3D graphics capabilities, the AMD 690 series chipset is a proven performer, easily handling the demanding workloads of today's PC users," said Phil Eisler, corporate vice president and general manager, AMD Chipset Division. "This is just the first in a line of innovative, high- performance AMD chipsets that we'll introduce to address every sector of the market."
The AMD 690 series chipset incorporates ATI Radeon(TM) X1250 graphics into its design to ensure The Ultimate Visual Experience(TM) for Windows Vista.
Multitasking between applications has never been easier with Windows Aero, the new visually-rich 3D user interface built into Windows Vista Premium and Business editions. The AMD 690 series chipset delivers the power to make new features like Windows Flip and Windows Flip 3D an integral part of every business day.(1)
"As one of the first chipsets with motherboard graphics to receive the Certified for Windows Vista logo, the AMD 690 family is a testament to the ongoing relationship between Microsoft and AMD," said Dave Wascha, director of partner marketing for Windows Client at Microsoft Corp. "ATI Radeon graphics deliver excellent Windows Vista performance. We're proud that together we're able to provide consumers worldwide an experience that is easier, safer, more entertaining and better connected whether at home, at work, or on the go."
Working together, AMD's chipset, CPU and GPU hardware and software teams have optimized the AMD 690 platform to provide rock-solid stability and image quality and will soon support select platforms in the AMD Validated Solutions program. Commercial customers will appreciate the energy-efficient design of AMD 690 series-based platforms, in a compact package suitable for multiple form factors and configurations, supporting up to four monitors with the addition of a dual-DVI ATI Radeon graphics card.
The AMD 690 family is the first AMD chipset with ATI graphics that supports ATI Avivo(TM) technology, providing The Ultimate Visual Experience(TM) with smooth video playback and true-to-life images for all multimedia, including high-definition content. The AMD 690 series chipset also provides more display choices than any other chipset today, being the first chipset with integrated HDMI and a separate DVI output. Protected content can also be played through on-chip HDCP support, making this chipset an incredible multimedia platform.(2)
The new AMD 690 series chipset, representing one of the industry's most versatile platform GPU solutions, is also a new addition to the AMD Better by Design program. Launched earlier this year, the Better by Design program is an industry-wide initiative highlighting outstanding performance and superior technologies in PCs designed by leading global OEMs. Today's PC users want better performance and a richer experience, and the Better by Design program provides the added level of information needed to make the smarter choice.
The AMD 690 series chipset will be widely available from partners, including Albatron Technology Co., ASUS, Biostar, ECS, ELITEGROUP COMPUTER SYSTEMS CO., LTD, EPoX Computer Company, Foxconn Technology Group, GIGABYTE United Inc, Jetway Info Co. Ltd., MSI Computer Ltd., PCPartner Ltd. and Sapphire. In addition, numerous system integrators are on board including Atelco, Bas Group, Formoza, Multimedis, Onda, PC Box, Seethru, Systemax, Unika, Unika Multimedia and ZT Group.
About AMD
That is why I posted this earlier today:
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=64606&pt=msg&mid=1473425
I believe anatural is dead on correct!!!
stratertele
Thanks...there may be some serious volitility...
TJ, all:
What is to be decided Friday in Whyte's court???