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: SBHX who wrote (72619)	5/11/2001 7:54:11 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Actually, Rambus was only found guilty of Count 10. Hager is wrong. You can not be both guilty of constructive fraud and actual fraud. Actual fraud is sufficient. There is no evidence that Rambus negotiated in bad faith with any of their clients. That was not an issue in this case. This fraud verdict is on the surface very weak. The jury seems to have found that Infineon "relied" on Rambus silence. I think the jury bought Desmairis (the balding 50 something lawyer) characterization of Rambus attempts to protect its IP from expropriation as illegal when it is not. But IMO no evidence was produced that proved that Infineon was "relying" on Rambus silence. The plotted to cath Rambus is that type of fish net IMO.

To: SBHX who wrote (72619)	5/11/2001 9:22:18 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: If the contracts were entered into where one party actually knew... The legal term is "fraud in the inducement" which means that one of the signers of the contract was induced to sign because of a mis-representation by the other party. If "fraud in the inducement" can be shown, the contract is not binding. The nice thing about "fraud in the inducement" is that, if it can be claimed, all terms of the contract are void. Including all the "fine print" which often has gotchas like penalties or requirements that one of the parties pay the legal fees of the other party in the event of a dispute. All terms of the contract are out if "fraud in the inducement" can be shown. And that Jury conviction for fraud on the part of Rambus should do the trick for Samsung, etc. (I'll check those words carefully before posting them) :-) Dan