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 (67890)	3/15/2001 10:01:17 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi Zeev Hed; Re " I would only say, that if I were to be defending RMBS in front of a Jury, I would ask the jury to consider the following, ... that, by the way is breach of contract ... access to that IP for free?" So why isn't Rambus suing the JEDEC members for breach of contract of those NDAs? Perhaps because the charge would be thrown out by a judge too quickly to fool the shareholders into not selling? Same goes for the comment on IP for free. Give me a good reason why your legal arguments haven't shown up in the documents filed so far. Here's a thought for you to consider: What you are suggesting wouldn't get past the judge. If trials were about emotions, it might be a good idea, though. The real problem for Rambus is that because of the Markman case, the language used in patents is interpreted by the judge, not by the jury. So right now, the problem that Rambus has is not that they have to show that they have clean hands with regard to their JEDEC activities, which is what you keep harping on. Instead, they have to worry about whether the judge will place restrictions on the language that will force their patents to be reduced in scope to the invention originally disclosed, (base) RDRAM. -- Carl P.S. How many times have you had a judge revoke your attorney-client priviledge?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (67890)	3/15/2001 10:58:52 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

I agree with your assessment of the case. It is clear that Rambus IP was "converted" for use in DDR and SDRAM. The term "conversion" is a legal term for stealing. If you read Crisp's email it is clear that he was aware of this conversion of Rambus IP by JEDEC members as they attempted to solve the SDRAM problems. I suspect this RICO attack may backfire on Infineon. Such a brutal assault on a small company by a giant European company may lead the jury to award treble damages. I suspect that these the "libeling" and "smearing" of Rambus reputation by these boiler room hacks is being paid for one or more of the following companies Micron, Infineon and AMD. Of course, there is no cure for the legal characterizations but the jury may strike out at Infineon.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (67890)	3/16/2001 4:05:35 AM
From: Grashopper	Respond to of 93625

Wow..do you really believe a jury will understand all that?? Rico is the statute designed to award damages for racketerring activities.............in this case it takes the place of punitive damages or smart money to punish monetarily a person who acts so maliciously that actual damages are not enough so the Jury can tack on extra punishment damages.........FWIW i do not think either Rico or punitive damages can be applied against rmbs and the pleading of Rico against rmbs is just sabre rattling and nothing else.............pleading Rico affects the otherside. sort of like a IRS audit of a honest man, ..he (the honest man)IS CLEAN as a whistle but the audit still causes him discomfort and anquish