No reason to address Carl's behavior on the thread -- his suspensions and deleted messages speak for themselves.
I’ve been a lurker here for a long time and I’m amazed that so many people want to shoot the messenger. Bilow has been consistently accurate in his comments and predictions. His hilarious fictional letter that got him booted from SI for a few days has panned out to be largely true. As Bilow correctly predicted, the infringement claims were thrown out, there was a fraud verdict, Rambus was ordered to pay IFX’s attorney fees, and the class action sharks are circling for the kill.
Bilow was correct about this company and many of you were wrong. Of course you may have been hoodwinked by the company in the same way they tried to hoodwink Judge Payne. The difference is that the judge and jury caught them red-handed.
Judge Payne’s ruling is not yet on the Rambusite. Someone showed me a copy and it is filled with serious facts-- not opinion -- about the Rambus tactics that were proved at trial. Read this quote from pages 27-28 of Judge Payne’s August 9 ruling. Call the courthouse and get a copy for yourself. – LOL!
Back to lurk mode.
=========
b. False Testimony by Rambus Executives
Rambus representatives also hindered discovery efforts by providing false or misleading testimony. For example, Richard Crisp (a former executive, now consultant to Rambus) testified in his first deposition that he “never, ever” participated in Rambus’ patent drafting efforts. However, when he was confronted with documents obtained after the piercing of the attorney-client privilege, Crisp was forced to admit that he directed which claims should be filed in response to the technology discussions at JEDEC. Similarly, Rambus’ Chief Executive Officer, Geoff Tate, at his first deposition, testified that he did not believe that Rambus drafted claims to cover JEDEC’s standard-setting work (indeed, he stated that he did not know that it was possible to amend patent claims), but, at trial he admitted, upon being prodded by reference to the belatedly obtained documents, that he knew that Rambus was amending its patent applications to cover the JEDEC SDRAM standard. Rambus seeks to explain these contradictions by arguing that Crisp and Tate suffered from a memory lapse at their first depositions. That explanation simply strains credulity.
========== |
