Replies to post #8245 on Rambus (RMBS)

[NukeJohn]

but no info or cross posting by say Scruffy or NJ

I was busy working yesterday and unable to go to Richmond. I hope to be able to attend the CMC on TR Labs vs Rambus tomorrow and will report what I hear....although I expect all the action to be in CA.

FWIW, the reason you probably haven't heard a greal deal about the Richmond session yesterday is that a lot of investors don't know what to make of it. It appears Samsung has found a method whereby Payne can apply sanctions to Rambus. Samsung accuses Rambus of acting in bad faith because their counterclaims were frivolous (they should have known they were guilty of spoliation because of Payne's oral ruling), so they say Rambus acted in bad faith. They completely neglect the fact that the only spoliation hearing with findings of fact proved Rambus not guilty. Stone did an excellent job in court (as always), so many investors left thinking we had won...but on further reflection, they now see a pathway where Payne can do damage. The big question is...will payne want to be in the spotlight with another incredulous ruling that will undoubtedly be overturned on appeal. Personally, I hope he tries it, because I think Rambus would then package up all of Payne's misdeeds, from his biased court comments, to his denial of discovery in Samsung, to his denial to allow the JRA documents from CA, to the ways he has guided opposing counsel in open court...and attempt to get him barred from ever hearing another Rambus case. That would be a great filing to see.

Also, if Payne does try to hurt Rambus with this ruling, Rambus might be inclined to see the AT case through to the end...and pursue back royalties from Samsung (even though they paid a nominal license fee from 2001-5/2005) due to their participation in the RDRAM price fixing scheme.


JMHO,

NJ