I am at page 150 of the transcript. Unlike some other posters, I'm not particularly concerned about David Monahan's "performance" at the pre-trial conference. Thus far, none of the rulings has been of great consequence, and his style is that of the older gentleman, "pardon me, my memory isn't what it once was," which I think can be disarming and effective if played properly at trial.
So far, here is the most enjoyable quote in light of the later IFX disclosures:
15 MR. DESMARAIS: It's the same issue all
16 over again. There is no issue in this case whether
17 Mr. Horowitz invented RDRAM. There is no issue that
18 that was a good invention and that it was well known
19 and that he got praised for it. He should have been
20 praised for it. It was a clever invention.
21 THE COURT: You are stipulating --
22 MR. DESMARAIS: The issue is whether he
23 invented SDRAM, was praised for SDRAM, and whether
24 his patents relate to SDRAM not RDRAM.
23 So the predicate is does it relate to the
24 same technology that's at issue in the case? If it
25 does, then you have got one set of problems. If it
132
1 doesn't -- or you have got no problems. If it does
2 not, I don't understand why it comes in.
3 And I think that's your objection.
4 MR. DESMARAIS: Yes, Your Honor. They
5 were telling people about RDRAMs, not SDRAMs. |
