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 (69380)	3/30/2001 3:43:06 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

It might have some impact on the jury, but in this kind of suit wherein the issue involves highly complex and technical fact questions, IMHO, you don't want to give a jury any reason to believe you don't know what you are talking about. But the first problem is always getting to that jury with your prima facie case, and for that reason you also have to concern yourself with whether or not the Judge thinks you know what you're doing. So far I can't say that I can see what they're trying to do, but then this is just a Mom & Pop talking. Nor have I seen anything that could be used to give IFX a motive to settle on terms that include any type of payment to RMBS. The question I have is whether or not RMBS could dismiss their IFX, Hyundai, MU suits (w/out collecting material royalties) on any conceivable basis, and still continue to collect from those who signed up for SDRAM/DDR licenses. I assume that no such settlement terms are possible under their licenses. If say IFX could get full license rights for $5.25, and be assured that Samsung, et al., would have to continue to pay at their current rates, IFX would have a motive to settle. As it stands I just can't see a rational basis for them to settle on terms including substantive payments to RMBS or acknowledgment of its rights in the claimed IP. But obviously, we still have very few of the critical facts to be presented in the case. And discovery seems to be continuing. 0\|0