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: Zeev Hed who wrote (55423)	9/27/2000 8:47:22 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 93625

Re: I thought this was a federal case, not a state case. State rules would not be operative, I believe. You're right, I was thinking of the Micron case. Sorry for the error. I had printed out the list of Rambus's responses to micron and had those in mind (e.g. move to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction). I didn't have the header with the court on the printout, but Rambus's jurisdictional claims were likely claims that torts under Federal law were brought to a state court. Since the Hyundai case was brought to a federal court (as you pointed out), can we assume that the arbitration was voluntary, even if under heavy encouragement from the Judge? Regards, Dan PS - I'm not an attorney, but often work with attorneys and legal issues, so I know less than some and more than others regarding such matters. I've used a little borrowed language in some recent posts, and don't want to give the wrong impression.