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: gnuman who wrote (68557)	3/20/2001 8:52:27 AM
From: capt rocky 1	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

man,i can hear the questions at the jury selection now. "does a bus have 4 wheels " "is spam ok with eggs?" i know from following the tech talk that i would be worthless on the jury.if it goes to trial, the tactic i would use would be to build a sdram and ddr set up out of separate parts, take out the parts rmbs has a patent on , and tell inf to make their product work with out these parts. i would make the display really big and out of plastic for easy viewing and keep it as simple as possible. oh, carl, you were right and i was wrong. but it is easy to look back a month . how about looking forward a month. much more valuable. rocky

To: gnuman who wrote (68557)	3/20/2001 9:03:00 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

GP, I had expressed a similar view in posts exchanged with Mike. Going back to look for them was more effort that I care to make again (I am no Carl B with a search engine:8); but I some how managed to find these. Except as to the comments on INTC we have more "facts" today, but I am stubbornly holding to the same views: 1) Responding to a question on whether MU will be blocked by a rule of estoppel: siliconinvestor.com 2) Responding to a question on whether or not RMTR will get settlements in its favor: siliconinvestor.com 3) Explanation of #2, above. siliconinvestor.com I think the third URL most directly responds to your comments. I think its important to remember that despite the risks and uncertainties of litigation, it really is an "art" which is based on real principles of human interaction. And the very best practitioners are in fact quite good at forecasting the out comes. Not that I have the skills required to perform such forecasting, but most people will recognize the "artist" when they see one. By definition they know how to give us what we are looking for to favor their case. Its like the difference between knowing a truly good entertainment and one which is simply hyped as such. We may be able to recognize a performance as a timeless addition to the form, but be completely incapable of producing one ourselves. As a result it seems mystical and we talk of the very best performers as being "gifted." But in every human activity and culture there are inevitable patterns of emotion that move us in more or less similar directions. Its no unusual "gift" for us to have the ability to recognize, respond to and play upon those emotional motivations. Its in our genes. We can't not do it. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the court room "artist" is just an average Joe who practices the use of those "tools" in a judicial workplace. He spends inordinate time "recognizing" where the law was and is. He studies where society was and is in relationship to changes in the law. Then he takes risks by acting on this knowledge in a variety of ways to expand his capacity to both move and respond to a specific law and small groups of society to obtain a desired result. Its no different than any thing else. If you work hard at it you get your share of results. But human beings not being machines, you can't win them all.<g> As far as the term "peer" is concerned I am afraid it still carries its English feudal accent. But it clearly has nothing to do with matching the characteristics of jurors with litigants in this country today, although not long ago it was common. Now juries are supposed to be representative of the "qualified" members of the community in which the court is located. But in practice many people seek to avoid jury duty and some local jury commissioners are better than others at collecting the pool from juries are chosen. For those involved jury selection is just another of the "tools" of the job and it requires practice and knowledge of the relevant laws to use it efficiently. 0\|0