Hi all; Latest transcript (220) depresses mom and pop. They begin to blame the lawyers again, and the judge. Like the mother of the prisoner on trial for murder, they just don't see how their little boy could be guilty, LOL!!!
Docket Transcript 220
quad_pumped_abby, Yahoo RMBS thread, April 7, 2001
Well, it is now clear that Infringeon is going back to the JEDEC defense with more fervor. They even found a way to spin the deadly menace memo. The judge obviously agrees with them, from the way I read the transcript, that there is plenty of evidence that Rambus mislead JEDEC by not informing them of pending patents once the rules were changed. Thus he is allowing the crime fraud exception to move forward. It would appear that Rambus will have to rely on the fact that the patent they disclosed was the basis for all continuation patents to justify their silence.
...
Yahoo Message number: 247023 also see 247032 , 247036 , 247057 .
I am not a lawyer so I don't know. Yes you are correct that this was an attempt to overturn his previous ruling, and yes much of it was boilerplate. I guess what perturbs me is the reading is literal to Rambus being in the wrong, whether it is in fact intended that way or not. Get ready for the spin jobs that Jack and company put on this. They should read something to the effect "Judge says Rambus conspired to steal JEDEC technology, Rambus lawyers in hot seat".
Yahoo Message number: 247067
Quad_pumped_abby is a bit legally ignorant, so he doesn't realize that Infineon has multiple defenses against Rambus, and the fact that they are winning on one doesn't mean that their other defenses don't also work. He also misses the point that the JEDEC fraud is what Infineon is relying on to get triple RICO damages.
Re: Docket Transcript 220
rmbs2001, Yahoo RMBS thread, April 7, 2001
I came to the same conclusions after reading the transcript.
The judge went on for several pages about "how a reasonable jusry could conclude" that Rambus had a scheme to withold information from JEDEC and modify and submit additional patent applications to cover SDRAM as JEDEC and the industry weren't interested in RDRAM. He seems to make IFX's case for them. I think if Rambus did agree to summary judgement, they wouldn't have a chance with this judge.
...
I hope Rambus' lawyers can do a better job of convincing a jury than they are of this judge. It still seems evident in this transript that the IFX lawyers have a better grasp of the law and able to think quickly on their feet. I hate to see it over and over, Alcock not being familiar with the case law or the documents presented to the court. There were several times, where the judge helped him out, rather than him leading the judge in the direction he wanted.
...
All in all, I think Rambus is right, but IFX is out-lawyering them... I have no legal background, but can help but think that the judge's gut feeling will sway the direction of the trial and the jury. Any other thoughts/intrepretations?
Yahoo Message number: 247026
... I want to hope for the best, but are becoming more and more concerned that there is now a possibility that Rambus could not only lose this case, but actually have some patents invalidated. ...
Yahoo Message number: 247050
I too should probably keep my thoughts to myself. I'm not a technical person or a lawyer, so was trying to put myself in the shoes a juror. Doing so, with the apparent view of the judge, I don't think this trial is going well at all for the home team. I suppose we'll see plenty of FUD stories next week. Seems like there are actual things that can be pointed to now, not just bogus slants of the facts. I should probaly turn my computer off and just wait until a verdict is reached. It almost feels as if all of us longs are on trial too. ...
Yahoo Message number: 247061
ahmd6, Yahoo RMBS thread, April 7, 2001
I finished reading the latest documents, Is this judge biased to IFX or what ??? I mean he went on and on ... how a resonble jurey might find RMBS did changed it application or lied to the JEDEC or mislead the MM industry. he bought every argument that was made by IFX. I dont think that IFX need good attorneys after all they have the judge.
Yahoo Message number: 247053
-- Carl
P.S. This one is kind of funny, in a trashy sort of way:
... Maybe Rambusite(jeff) should find a way to block specific Ip's from accessing the site , so they would have to pay for their own copies of the transcript to trash Rambus.
Yahoo Message number: 247077
Also there's a poster on the Yahoo thread who is using "bilow" in his name, and using all kinds of foul language. That's not me. I have no idea who he is. I do not post on Yahoo, or Raging Bull, Motley Fool, or Rambusite. |
