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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (34344)	3/21/2001 6:01:38 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Here's what some folks have already dug up from the RMBS/Infineon documents & the judges comments, etc..... ______________________________________________________________________ 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. Message 15542655 ______________________________________________________________________ How about page 15/16: a transcript of a conversation from April 1992 where the Chairman of a JEDEC committee says "Rambus announced that they will demand $10 million from Samsung because of the similarity of SDRAMs with the architecture of Rambus memory". So much for Carl's (and others) BS about not trying to claim royalties until 1999. Message 15542687 ______________________________________________________________________ And on page 18, the judge says that unless the the president of Infineon is going home for a funeral, he's to remain in this country for his deposition (clearly P.O.'ed). He continues -- "This is a problem that needs to be put on the front burner of Infineon. They are not doing anything else that's a whole lot more important right now insofar as I'm concerned." Message 15542716 _____________________________________________________________________ On page 24, the judge says to the Infineon lawyer: "My guess is that when you got these [the documents], you probably got a big lump in your stomach." Message 15542740 ______________________________________________________________________ Based on these new documents, on page 27 the judge adds "How did they know enough about Rambus' bus and the block size and the double data rate and the DLL, and the clocking? How did they know enough about that topic in April of '92 to make the statements they make in here without knowing what was in Rambus' patents? That means that they knew." Message 15542767 ______________________________________________________________________ Not looking good for Infineon me thinks....... Ö¿Ö