Interesting report from Scruffynyc mentions a guy who sounds like SS stepping up to buy more of the BU$$..JUST BACK FROM DC.by: scruffynyc Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 10/09/03 02:43 pmMsg: 537578 of 537875
Please excuse my grammar and spelling.I've had a night to sleep on it and I'll now put together a few of my impressions.I took notes but I don't think I'll use them for this summary as it would probably take me a few days to de-code them!I arrived at the FTC building at 7:15 am. I had a 6:00 am flight from NY and it was short taxi ride down to the FTC. I soon met a guy wandering around like myself. His name was John G. He's an occasional poster and nephew of Rambusrider. We grabbed a coffee and went inside. We were the first ones in the courtroom. Shortly thereafter, the room began to fill with so many of the characters that we all have become familiar with.We sat on the Rambus side (of course). We met Linda form the Rambus PR department and she introduced us to Danforth. (A cool way to start the day). Mark Horowitz was there as well. I overheard him telling someone how naïve they all were when they started Rambus. Bill teal, formally of Hager sat next to me and told me that he had contacted Mike Magee about writing a factual piece on Rambus for the Inquirer. Those familiar with Mcgee know how funny that really is. Also in my vicinity was Jim Rockwell, Jack Robertson, Stuart Steel and co, Bob Ealu, Ownerof Business (screen name) and really so many others. If there is ever a next time, we really must get a proper name tags so that we know who is who!A word about Jack Robertson:He is something right out of the movies. I don't know how he affords the bus fare to get wherever he has to go. He was unkempt and skulked around during the day. He switches seats often. He can't see the screens or he can't hear or both! At one point he was sitting up with the Rambus legal team and (where he was booted from) and at another point he was right in front of me. I introduced myself and asked him if he felt safe sitting there given all the hate e-mail I've sent him <g.>. He said something like" You guys are too much all I try to do is report what's happening" I asked if there was any chance he could come up with something that was remotely factual? He was amazed that I or anyone could think that his reports were skewed. I commented that I thought his piece about Infineon settling after the Supreme Court denial decision past Monday was actually fair and balanced. He stated "Infineon will have to, what choice do they have?"The hearing began around 8:45 Am.The Rambus legal Team is a strong, confident looking group. Stone is the seasoned veteran. On the FTC side, there was Sean Royall, Oliver and a couple of assistants.On the FTC side, you have Sean Royall, Stone and a couple of beaten down government assistants. Sean spoke first and is very articulate and could be convincing to anyone who is not familiar with the case. He did his "this case is different from the IFX case stuff" and basically wasted two hours rehashing the same old FTC stuff. It really was not very exciting. He was followed by Oliver. He has the look of a cartoon character from ‘Bug's Life". Tall, pale, balding grey hair and worst of all….a pair of Sally Jessy Raphael Glasses. He had a soft, lispy voice but was easy to understand
Oliver's whole presentation was basically to take a statement such as
"Jedec members had to disclose applications" and then recite the names of the different FTC witnesses that agreed with it.
"this was repeated by Mr. Gordon Kelly"
"and reiterated by Mr. Desi Roden
Confirmed by Mr Steve Appleton.
He did this over and over. I don't think had any bearing on anything. Except to bore me and Judge Mcguire to tears.
Earlier in the Am when Sean Royall was saying that the "Infineon case has no bearing here at the FTC", a number of people had left to both post the news and report it. It soon came out on Dow Jones and I think the stock dropped a bit. I'll touch more on this later.
We broke for lunch at 12:45 pm. In the cafeteria, JohnG and I sat at the table next to Danforth, Horowitz, Jack Robertson and some other reporters. I asked Danforth and Horowitz if I could take a photo. He said no (I don't blame him).
Sean Royall, Oliver and their (pathetic) team were sitting at their own table. It was surreal to see everybody sitting ‘together' and eating lunch together in the midst of a major "war".
After lunch, Greg Stone and his main assistant (Name???) began picking apart at the FTC case. Slowly and methodically he plowed through it. McGuire was refreshed and was genuinly interested. The Rambus team did well. We heard all the classics, such as "Someday all computers will have to be built this way" and we even had Willie Meyer on Video testifying as to what he though his version of the patent policy was (patent applications did not have to be disclosed). Basically, rambus provided example after example of what different JEDEC members thought the patent disclosure was.
At around 3:00 PM. McGuire starting asking about the confusing patent policy. He was referring to the CAFC and was confused by the fact that they had relied on a particular policy that was in place in 1993. I believe the policy that he was referring to that the CAFC had relied on had stated that Patent applications had to be disclosed. Then he mentioned that he thought CAFC's interpretation of the policy was rather "INCOHERANT" on this matter. My first impression was "Uh Oh". And as apx. 5 people got up to leave from different parts of the room, I said to myself "this uncertainty thing can't be good".
So I got up and went to the hallway to sell my November call options. As soon as I got off the phone. I overheard the guy standing right next to me saying "BUY 10,000,0000 in 20,0000 share lots. When he got off the phone I said "wait a minute, I just sold my Nov Calls because I didn't like what I was hearing. He said…"No, Its all good.
Stone straightened him out on that one". It It seems that Stone had been successful in explaing to McGuire that it wasn't the CAFC's job to solve the Patent policy issues that the jury relied on in that case (or something like that)
Goes to show you…What do I know!!!!!!!!!!
(Anyway I didn't sell any stock. I just wanted to lock in the profit on the calls)
Back inside:
An anti-trust attorney (Melman) for Rambus spoke until around 5:00 PM. He was hard to understand because of both the subject matter and his quick voice. I feel that most (Including McGuire) had trouble following it.
At 5:00 PM it finally got interesting. (Of Course Jack Roberston had already left so who knows what kind of report he'll have!)
McGuire is a tall, good looking man with a full head of ‘Bill Clintonlike" hair. He seems truly interested in sorting this mess of a case out. He even throws in the occasional joke. At times he seemed to forget what he is going to say mid-sentence and then you can just see the relief on his face when whatever it is that he has forgotten has popped back into his head!
Sean Royall begun to perk up at this point and was anxious to respond to anything and everything that the Judge or Rambus was saying. It was annoying. This was clearly the best part of the day. This mini -session was good because it was truly back and forth and the FTC was stumped on a couple of occasions. I checked my notes and I wrote ‘Oliver is sinking'. However, Sean Royall was ever-eager to help his esteemed colleague out of whatever verbal bind he found himself in. Sean Royall also repeated the judge's earlier words (at least 3 times) about the policy being "Incoherent". Finally the judge said" Well, I may have been a bit exuberant when I used that word.. Sean didn't use incoherent again
In any case, I have scanned the board and see that you are all aware of the questions McGuire wanted answered.
He really wanted to know from both sides,
"How on a matter of law could he have the authority to set rates or strip a company of their property?"
He asked Oliver ..Give one case??? Oliver said after stuttering for a minute…"DELL"!
I loved it. (The DELL case is not related at all)
He also wanted to know how the FTC could strip a company of its property and rights based on that unclear patent policy. He was big on this "Unclear" patent policy thing.
Lastly, I like his plan to sort the Policy into three piles. If this method he uses we have a SLAM DUNK.
PILE 1: The written policy = VERY SMALL PILE
PILE 2: The after the fact evidence testimony as to what the policy was. = MEDIUM
PILE 3: Pile based on the conduct of the JEDEC members. = BIG
Anyway….I'll have to check my notes for anything else.
John G missed his 7:00 flight as we didn't get out until 7:30. He still might not be home!
The judge had expected us to be out of there by Noon.
I went across the street to the Capital Grill for a beer. There were four of us. I'd hoped we'd have more.
I am buying on any and all dips.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
