Rambus (RMBS)

[lolo]

The weakest part of the IA request IMHO

was the 3rd condition, starting at bottom of brief page 14, (pdfpage 20).

(Ok, has anyone yet pointed out the improper characterization of the Infineon cross-license and royalty payments to bus)

I know it is tough to keep reading by that point,
as the purple prose landmines have already caused
multiple barfbag deployments by then (i.e., 'oppressive royalties and crippling injunctions', etc.).
[try to remember, this court despises argumentative posturing]

But I look forward to another slash-o-matic response from stone/perry, lampooning hinie's goofy logic about how allowing the IA 'may materially Expedite the Ultimate Termination of the Litigation.

Just try to read that section in isolation and tell me you're persuaded. I didn't think so...

Having seen the court's work to interleave all of this trial stuff, I can't imagine tossing it all based on this absurd brief.
And yes, I don't think the hacks who pounded this thing out were paying attention to what was said to the court at the last CMC.
Yet another thing to avoid,
the working of both sides of the street contemporaneously...
But heck, IANAL.
LOLo


[Can this goofy language be a way to signal the court that 'the client forced me to do this, against all logic', sort of like a pilot nonsense codephrase to convey hijacking?]