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: The Prophet who wrote (69051)	3/24/2001 5:16:12 PM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 93625

You may be right Prophet, In reality, the risk of Crisp's testimony is less that the jury will consider RMBS to have been playing "hide the patent," but more that they will wrongly consider his opinion about whether RMBS' patents covered SDRAM as being relevant to the infringement claims in the litigation. You have just described the two basic alternatives I see as potential ways in which Crisp can fit in the "story" IFX might present. What I don't see is how he supports anything that RMBS will be trying to convince the jury of. I don't see the possibility of a "We didn't know what our own 1990-1992 patents covered." approach being a successful proposition. As to the limitation of Crisps comments to the JEDEC defense, I may be wrong but I doubt that you're correct. His statements could certainly be probative of what was generally known - or not known - about RMBS IP at the time and that in itself could be relevant to most of the counts on both sides. 0\|0

To: The Prophet who wrote (69051)	3/24/2001 7:32:30 PM
From: blake_paterson	Respond to of 93625

Mike Magee canned from the Register. "Barred for life," as they say: Message 15559034 ...just when we thought we had a chance at a straight story...

To: The Prophet who wrote (69051)	3/24/2001 9:36:19 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Look, Crisp was an engineer. Probably a talented one. I don't have any reason to think not. But is there reasons to believe that in his role he was privy to Rambus corporate internal strategic planning? I represent some of my clients at professional gatherings. I state what, to the best of my current knowledge, their plans and objectives are, and their limitations. Sometimes I am not totally correct, as "the best of my knowledge" does not cover highly confidential new strategic directions, new product designs, potential sales or purchases of entities, etc. "To the best of MY knowledge" is all that is can be for a witness. I am far more interested in the BEST knowledge of Mr. Schumacher, President and CEO of Inf. than I am of Mr. Crisp, a former engineer and corporate representative. I think any good lawyer can work around this one pretty easily. And, of course, Mr. Crisp now sees things differently, because he knows things he didn't know in their totality then. And, he is not a lawyer, a judge or an expert in patents. His opinion is not, was not and won't be that of an expert.