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 (69037)	3/24/2001 10:42:22 AM
From: hdl	Respond to of 93625

For those who like to analyze litigation and make money off of investing in stocks of companies involved in litigation which they should win but market doesn't realize that- look at IGEN! it has litigation with roche. it should win and it should soar.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (69037)	3/24/2001 1:22:49 PM
From: blake_paterson	Respond to of 93625

Zeev: Read some of the latest docs from Jeff’s site: rambusite.com This one is where RMBS had to give the Court a list of products which use part of the involved RMBS IP. They list the 3 amigos/infringers first. Then comes the best part, where they list all of the involved products, one by one, made by Samsung, NEC, Toshiba, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and Oki. And for each company, the following phrase is used: "...has developed a wide variety of SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, and SGRAM products under its’ license with Rambus.” It's nice to know that the judge has again seen, in writing, that the majority of the industry has already acknowledged the validity of RMBS IP. BP Edit: BTW, it looks like the rumored appeal to the Fed Circuit was wrt the Attorney:Client privilege thing. The judge stayed his own ruling pending that appeal (to higher court).

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (69037)	3/24/2001 2:08:08 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Zeev, That post was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek and I have no reason to doubt that Crisp was telling the truth. I was just poking fun at the way he did it. In truth when a witness says "I don't know" something and then proceeds to give his best "guess" when he hasn't been asked for such speculation, I usually begin to throw up.<vbg> But regardless of whether Crisp left RMBS in '96 or '00, there is no rule which would have precluded him RMBS or its lawyers from talking to him before his deposition and I would be very surprised if they didn't. Those "discussions could probably be inquired into in the course of his deposition, but perhaps not completely on the topic of what he did or knew at the time he was at RMBS. Either way if such discussions were proper, IMHO their disclosure could have been no worse for RMBS than the testimony reported here. 0\|0