Replies to post #7935 on Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

JA on the fool has a solid rep (former FBI guy, retired 20+ years), and he's told me he has confirmed that Nic is a patent lawyer in private practice.

My antennae lead me to the same conclusion. (Don't know if Nic is a solo practitioner, or with a big firm or an ip boutique.)

Do you have someone to vouch for you? LOL

smd

PS - Obviously, you see Nic giving crap to lots of posters, perhaps no one MORE than myself. I try to give it back when I think he deserves it, and I try NOT to give it back willy nilly.
Take care.
==========
But nic's supposedly a lawyer, and I'm supposedly not.

[Nicdagreek]

- I believe that rule keeps the IFX deal away from the jury. Nic wants everyone to believe that it keeps all of the previous license deals away from the jury, and the only things admissable would be the IFX deal and what huge companies charge.

Maybe you'd have more success with your arguments if it were truly my position you were arguing with, as opposed to some fabrication of your own mind that you set up to fight about.

Please re-read my prior posts: I said nothing of the sort. I in fact told you what the test was: it has to be a license that bears on the appropriate time frame, and it has to be something which supports the (artificial) framework of a hypothetical arms length transaction. So what I pointed out, if you were to pay attention, is that the other agreements you think are coming in as evidence are no more relevant than the IFX agreement. Hence, absent any other information, it appears the chances of both are about the same for admissibility.

Contrast that with your position that: 1) the older Hynix agreement (and other agreements with third parties) was effectively a done deal; 2) the IFX agreement would never get in. This is clearly nothing than the obvious party line bias - you are not analyzing, you are just regurgitating.

Da Greek