Replies to post #8679 on Rambus (RMBS)

[idowzer]

Skeptic: You make a good point in focusing on the macro picture; that is, many of the parts in the overall landscape are now in Rambus' favor.

Look, RDRAM was an important break thru that had Intel on board initially; it was a way to speed up data thru the mother board. Rambus has not stood still on the R&D side since then. Obviously, the legal picture has been complicated since the "cartels" involvement. Of course, the final outcome for Rambus and its investors will hinge on many factors not just CAS latency.

I am amazed (an greatly appreciative!!! - Cal and others) at some of the technical expertise which is shared. (I wanted to jump in to the discussion re: "'access time register" but was unable (time restricted personal matter); but will eventually add info re: acccess to a friend who is an IP lawyer regarding opinion on this issue and "how and if" it might be introduced even though excluded by Whyte thru his ruling of Doc of equivalents.

So even though there are legal and EE technical issues lets not lose sight of the larger picture. We have been winning in CA Court with Whyte; "Spoil and UNClean Hands" has been KNOCKED Down. The ALJ geve us a big CLEAR Victory and the AT Civil Suit is coming down the pike.

I've been in since 99 with several Wins and One Loss (after the FTC) ruling. It can be complicated but Stay with the Big picture - we have help.

[smd1234]

Will,

Cotchett confirmed to me that the protective order entered 5-12-05 in the AT case is still in place and prevents use of the docs by the bus. They can "characterize" the docs in a filing to the FTC, but cannot attach them to a filing submitted to the FTC.

= Rambus can re-visit this again w/ Kramer.

= Rambus can give FTC a list of docs and ask FTC to subpoena them.

But that is as much as the bus can do now.

smd

==========================

I'm still trying to figure out what's protected and what's not in the AT case