Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

yes he chastised Rambus for filing the Samsung suit in California as a race to venue

He'll never hear "for the record" about Sammy, and --objectively speaking-- the Sammy taint is not really relevant on the issues before Payne. (He should be aware of it and be influenced by it anyway - b/c atty fees under 285 are supposed to be for the true good guy, punishing the true bad guy.)

Pretty sure he's treating the exhibits identically to how they were treated in the IFX case.

Regards,

smd

First off didn’t Payne chastise Rambus for filing the Samsung suite in California as a race to venue and hear Rambus’s argument as to how new DOJ documents proved Bad Faith on Samsungs part? If I remember correctly the Sammy audit refusal, newly discovered DOJ doc's, Sammy wanting a better deal than Infineon and other product infringements provoked this breakdown between them.

So my question is will the new developments in the criminal RDRAM price fixing admission carry any weight in Paynes court? Obviously Samsung is “Tainted” now with a crime that invites the suggestion of contractual Bad Faith.

One other point before I hit the hay is what did you make of 11/23/2005 91 ORDER granting [85] Motion to Seal Declarations and Exhibits by Samsung Electronics Signed by Judge Robert E. Payne. Why seal these documents, how does this weigh into the DOJ, Antitrust, Whyte cases or the settlement talks?