Replies to post #7910 on Rambus (RMBS)

[msaba]

SMD,

Of course you know I'm not a lawyer, and neither will I pretend to be one.

I think JJ, based on prima facie, is allowing Micron to see the same documents that Hynix saw, including those that IFX saw. When, and if, Micron presses for a dismissal based on spoliation and unclean hands, then Rambus can, and I'm sure they will, ask for CE based on JW ruling.

That is why I see little significance to his latest ruling. He is just being fair. From his point of view, it is possible that Rambus's destruction of documents affected Micron in different ways than it affected Hynix. But, we know better.

[docrew0]

Re: Can someone coherently explain Jordan's decision of last week?

>>Seems to me it means he is giving MU their own shot at Rambus on unclean hands, i.e., no CE.<<

Yes he is but remember its already well developed. We'll also be doing the same with Samsung later this year or early next.

IMHO Jordan had to have an unclean hands phase in this case or risk later appeal. In fact the 02/08/2006 docket 708 Letter to The Honorable Kent A. Jordan pretty much showed both sides preparing for this trial phase. The thing I can’t understand is why this was an event that was seen as bad "it was expected."

At any rate I'll attach part of what was under discussion in the Teleconference. The decision to hold a spoliation phase was made long ago. Keep in mind this is now outdated information and a different schedule has or will soon result from the 2/9/2006 Teleconference. If someone has the transcript from this call please post it.

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

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9634450

Micron Technology v. Rambus Inc. Docket 707 & 708
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware (Wilmington)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ

01/31/2006 707 ORDER, Setting Scheduling Teleconference for 2/9/2006 2:00 PM before Honorable Kent A. Jordan. Signed by Judge Kent A. Jordan on 1/31/06. (rwc, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)

02/08/2006 708 Letter to The Honorable Kent A. Jordan from Frederick L. Cottrell, III regarding Proposed Schedules - re 706 Order on Motion for Scheduling Order,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - B)(Cottrell, Frederick) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

[docrew0]

Re: Can someone coherently explain Jordan's decision of last week?

smd1234,

This is my last post on this. See Jordan's Order re Motion to Lift Stay 01/13/2006 page 11 starting at:

C. Modification of the Scheduling Order

http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/MicronVsRambus010.pdf

Nothing unexpected happened, people just wanted to play this as a reason to push the price lower. This was decided July 14, 2005 and later published in the Motion to Lift Stay 01/13/2006.

The question is how many people were waiting to pull the trigger on this and for how long? “Notes on file in Clerk's Office” and "Transcript on file in Clerk's Office"

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ

07/14/2005 685 STENO NOTES for 7/14/05 filed by Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. (Notes on file in Clerk's Office) (rwc, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)

07/14/2005 686 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference / Motion Hearing held on 7/14/05 before Judge Jordan. Court Reporter: B. Gaffigan. (Transcript on file in Clerk's Office) (rwc, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)