REGARDS TO ALL POSTERS HERE.
I'M SORRY I HAVE NOT VISITED THIS BOARD IN A WHILE.
THANK YOU MUCHO TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN POSTING DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE WHYTE!!!!!!!!
I THINK I MAY OWE JEFF A RESPONSE TO AN EARLY OCT POST, CORRECT?
ANYWAY, HERE IS MY RECENT post on TMF:
I cannot see Rambus settling before a spoliation/unclean hands ruling, no way, no way.
Effectively (given Judge Jordan's attitude) Whyte has all the remaining Rambus cases, and there was even talk in July '05 about moving the MU case to CA. (See ### and *** below)
Can HYNIX settle? Here is what I wrote earlier today.
Re: Going Through the Motions
by: zonzgr8 10/29/05 02:06 pm
Msg: 817843 of 817847
Hynix must lose by a ruling - - given all the circumstances of the company - - before they can settle.
I suspect they DO EXPECT Whyte to follow Payne's lead, but we know ...
The real Q is whether Watz is correct, i.e., whether an adverse ruling on unclean hands will be enough of a push to get 'em to settle.
==============================
###
THE COURT: That's a fair position to take.
MR. STONE: Let me make this statement. Rambus
is seeking to bring all of the litigation that has been
filed in California before Judge Whyte, including a recently
filed case against Samsung, including the DDR 11 case, all
of those cases we're seeking to consolidate in front of
Judge Whyte.
There are days when I think even though it's
late in the game, this case may be is properly subject to
1404(a) motion [see *** below] to take these issues before Judge Whyte for the very reason that we are seeking one forum in which to
resolve these issues. It would make no sense for Rambus,
which has all of these other cases lined up in front of
Judge Whyte, if they get an adverse ruling from Judge Whyte
in the first hearing, to think that he would not find in a
bench trial that that same ruling applied in the other
cases. That is a ruling which Rambus will have every
incentive to seek final review of in the Federal Circuit or
the Supreme Court if it were to lose that case.
===
***
Section 1404. Change of venue
(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought.
(b) Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any
action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or
hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the
court, from the division in which pending to any other division in
the same district. Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on
behalf of the United States may be transferred under this section
without the consent of the United States where all other parties
request transfer.
(c) A district court may order any civil action to be tried at
any place within the division in which it is pending.
(d) As used in this section, the term 'district court' includes
the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and
the term 'district' includes the territorial jurisdiction of each
such court.
