Hi Mike,
Sometimes you do get what you ask for.
But since juries can decide anything, at any given time, as I hear you saying, then you also have to be saying that MU would be STUPID TO TAKE THIS TO A TRIAL!
Thus all roads lead to a reasonable settlement in RMBS's favor. Can you buy any part of this line of thinking?
The above quote is what I was trying to answer.
First to clarify, if what you mean is that my postings express the idea that judges and juries can decide anything for any reason, then I confess you have peeped my hole card.
But please note, I have NEVER said that people in such positions make decisions For No Reason. At no time have I believed, stated or suggested that they make their decisions by throwing darts or by any other application of pure chance.
On the contrary, I believe I have gone to great pains to explain that in my opinion the "reason" employed by judges and juries is most often shaped, formed and based upon their perception of the parties and the "story" they present for decision.
The reason I went to such lengths was to challenge the notion that anyone on these message boards could some how find "a magic rule" of law that would necessarily decide this dispute, with only the slightest clue as to what "facts" even exist let alone which ones will be put before the court.
Many people "believe" that our relations are governed by such a magical "rule of law". I am not one of them. In my view people try to do "justice". They accomplish the feat by applying their personal sense of right and wrong to the circumstances they encounter. Only then do they look for a "rule of law" that will confirm that "sense".
Now, you concluded that "all roads lead to a reasonable settlement in RMBS's favor", and ask me if I "buy into" that conclusion.
My response was to describe a "road" which I would NOT perceive as leading to a "settlement" at all; let alone one you might consider "favorable to Rambus".
In return I am accused of BIAS. And the foundation for this "charge"?
You claim: I have "dismissed" facts of which I have no knowledge; failed to make assumptions about what "should have come to light already", months if not years before any trial; dismissed legal arguments which haven't even been made; and finally, that I replied to your invitation for pure speculation by qualifying my response with a BIG IF.
Before we go any further with this discussion I demand to know just exactly how YOU define the concept of BIAS. <vbg>
0|0 |
