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: Bilow who wrote (71518)	5/2/2001 4:57:31 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Any guesses for the next shoes to drop in this suit? Here's my list: (1) No infringement. (2) Liability for JEDEC activity. (3) Memory makers who signed licenses breaking contracts and suing for return of money. (4) Shareholder lawsuits alleging management misled about IP strength while selling shares. -- Carl All right Mr. Macho EE Smarty Pants!!<Ho Ha8-> I will see your 4 guesses and raise you 4: 1) Payne allows RMBS to take one or two - but not three infringement claims to the Jury; 2) Jury will find infringement; 3) IFX puts on dynamite Fraud/RICO case, RMBS' rebuttal witnesses are crucified on cross; 4) Judge directs verdict on Fraud Liability against RMBS, and gives RICO liability to the jury; 5) Jury awards $10 mil in damages on the Fraud claim and $30 million for RICO after concluding that RMBS is liable; 6) RMBS and IFX cross appeal - Appellate Court would likely reverse on RICO and the Infringement judgement on the one or two claims, but #8 below will result in settlement before the appellate decision is rendered; 7) By the time #6 becomes final, no one but the lawyers and plaintiffs will care because INTC will have started pumping DDR chip sets, PS2's will had had their run, and RDRAM production and sales will be in reverse; and 8) It really won't matter because of all the other thrilling litigation in which "someone," at this point undetermined but I am betting on "Secret Squirrel," discloses a basis for dragging INTC's deep pockets into this mess thus forming the basis for the biggest global settlement in High Tech history.<Vbg> Ok so I am just a tad too far out on the skinny branches here.<g> But don't forget Mr. Billow. IFX counsel has been pounding the table on the involvement of "all levels" of the company in the alleged fraud, and last time I checked INTC was a major shareholder, licensee/partner and I haven't checked, but I assume, could be shown to have some "influence" on the Board and former INTC staff in management. And more importantly, in an Oliver Stone kind'a way<vbg>, IF RMBS loses at trial on the fraud/RICO allegations there will be more hungry Plaintiffs lined up than there are revenues to distribute. This will provide a "substantial" search for the Deepest of pockets. And you know who that is.<g> ...Yes I know. You will say that INTC will be one of those hungry mouths lined up awaiting a hand out from the judiciary. And no doubt they will be among the first to jump on the carcass.<g> But - as Oliver Stone could well explain to you in much better prose - it will be just such commencement of an INTC/RMBS legal tiff which brings "Secret Squirrel" out of the woods and onto the center stage as the "finger pointing" period begins. Now! Lets see you top THAT script!<vbg> 0\|0

To: Bilow who wrote (71518)	5/2/2001 8:16:17 AM
From: sergiotenenbaum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hello Bilow, “”Any guesses for the next shoes to drop in this suit? Here's my list: (1) No infringement. (2) Liability for JEDEC activity. (3) Memory makers who signed licenses breaking contracts and suing for return of money. (4) Shareholder lawsuits alleging management misled about IP strength while selling shares.”” On this particular lawsuit the outcomes are total win, partial win, total loss. We most probably know by Friday or next Monday. On your four points above, I hear you. To borrow an old cliché, bear argument heard, bear argument understood. Regards, ST