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: jim kelley who wrote (68691)	3/21/2001 5:12:54 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

The judge's reaction was just as I expected it to be. He is pretty ticked off. The ability of either party to request a summary judgement at the end of the presentation of the other party's evidence means nothing. Standard civil procedure. He is obviously not interested at this late date in hearing arguments about how there is no question of fact. What a huge difference from the leaked story last week about how the case was going to be ended with one fell swoop. When a judge has to say he is not being emotional (for the record, I might add) believe me...he is emotional.

To: jim kelley who wrote (68691)	3/21/2001 5:58:57 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 93625

Jim, what is wrong with Rambus' lawyer, what business does he have at this stage to tell the court that one patent becomes mute because of the Judge construction of the term "bus", gee, I would have thought that he will at least fight to show that Infineon bus is a multiplexed bus and thus comes under the Judge's definition. As for the "hidden documents", someone perjured himself in the pretrial deposition (if perjury is possible during deposition), claiming they barely knew anything about Rambus and having a document calling Rambus a threat to the industry do not "correlate". Zeev