Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: anandnvi who wrote (55165)	9/26/2000 12:09:33 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 93625

I can not but - but I picked up this comment on arbitartion from the FOOL. Can anyone comment please? <<The Dockets of the U.S. District Court have become so backlogged; that most courts require what is called court-annexed arbitration as pretrial requirement. The way that these proceedings take place is that a magistrate conducts an informal hearing, and then issues a ruling, which either side can oppose and proceed to trial. The rational for using court-annexed arbitration as a means to reduce the docket, is that the parties are able to gauge the relative strength of their position, and thus their relative chances of prevailing at trial. Basically the objective is to make one party realize they are not going to win, and the other party that they are not going to be awarded as much as they had hoped.>> I am having a hard time remembering where all these lawuits are filed, since some are in multiple places I believe. Why haven't we seen this "ARB" before? Or have we and nobody noticed? What about MU?

To: anandnvi who wrote (55165)	9/26/2000 12:25:55 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: Can someone explain what "arbitration" means in the legal context? Unless it's binding arbitration, it doesn't mean all that much. The two sides will present their case, informally (relative to a full trial) in front of an arbiter or panel of arbitors. If either side doesn't like the results, they still go to trial in a regular court. If it's binding arbitration (which is always called "binding arbitration") the two sides contract to abide by the arbiter's decision, and give up the right to take their case to court. Arbitration is cheaper than all out litigation, IMHO, this is a sign that Hyundai wants to stall the case and that Rambus needs to reduce its legal fees. Hyundai stays out of any high stakes court cases until it has time to see which way the wind is blowing and Rambus has one fewer full trial to fund. And maybe the two firms will come to some kind of an agreement. A tenth of a percent as a royalty would still be a ton of money for Rambus, and it might be worth that much to Hyundai to make this aggravation go away until the next generation of (guaranteed Rambus IP free) memory is out in 3 years. Dan