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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (71965)	5/4/2001 7:33:33 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

RAMBUS INC (RMBS) May 04, 2001 Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q) MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS biz.yahoo.com

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (71965)	5/5/2001 12:57:17 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Skeeter Bug, Imagine you are a juror: Week One - Company A comes in and presents you with evidence, assertions, and argument that bad old lying foreign Company B has stolen A's "brilliant," "Havard" educated IP and refused to pay a <ed., hack!> "fair royalty" for it. In fact their witnesses are so "brilliant," "innovative" and "interesting" that you wonder whether or not there isn't some real fire beneath the smoke of that "deadly menace" memo by the rather "slow" and "dimwitted" officers of Company B. Week Two - Chapter I: Company B takes its turn at presenting evidence contradicting Company A and, further, asserting that Company A is a scheming fraud operated for a corrupt purposes as a racketeer influenced organization. But before Company B can call its first witness, you learn that the Judge has already determined that no reasonable person could look at Company A's allegations and believe more than 5% of them. Week Two - Chapter II: Then before Company B can even finish presenting its case, low and behold, you find out that the Judge has discovered that absolutely nothing Company A's lawyers got up there and told you on Day One of the trial can be accepted by any reasonably competent adult as true. Week Three - Chapter I: There you are again. Back in the court room as Company B goes on to finish its presentation on charges of Fraud and RICO after having proven its innocence of any alleged wrongdoing;... just like they told you they would back on Day One. Week Three - Chapter II: Finally there you are listening to closing arguments before departing for the jury room to deliberate on the only remaining allegations in the case. ...And they only include the allegations that Company B said you'd be asked to rule on back on Day One. Now how big a hurdle does Company A's lawyer have to get over to get you to believe his closing argument? Particularly when Company B has submitted evidence that Company A has even used its lawyers to carry out its corrupt practices? Is anyone in the jury room going to stand up and argue for the RMBS defense? How would you feel about wasting a week of your life listening to their evidence in Week One? Perhaps of more direct concern here is the question of whether RMBS stockholders and Directors are going to stand behind this particular management "approach" after the real jury answers these questions? 0\|0