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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (42991)	5/25/2001 7:57:19 PM
From: EnricoPalazzo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Would not a reasonable person be a little more cautious to an announcement by a company that was found guilty of fraud by three independent bodies of justice? I'm aware of one--the Richmond verdict. What are the other two? Are you trying to snow this thread? Courts make mistakes. Low-level ones especially--ask Judge Jackson ;). It is my opinion that RMBS did not commit fraud, legally or morally. I could be mistaken, but I'm not wholly ignorant about these matters. This post from (ye gods) the Yahoo board provides a bit of background about Jack. I don't expect it to persuade you, Ali, but others who are interested may check it out: messages.yahoo.com FYI, here's another poster from the fool making the same point I did about the lack of an injunction. Only difference is, he's obviously more informed about the law than I am :) boards.fool.com

To: Ali Chen who wrote (42991)	5/25/2001 8:58:53 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 54805

""Would not a reasonable person be a little more cautious to an announcement by a company that was found guilty of fraud by three independent bodies of justice?"" Based on the conclusions of the court appointed 'experts', the court case will proceed with their findings that RMBS patents are valid & that Micron infringed on said patents. This is significant well beyond the confines of the court in Italy IMO. Micron, INFX & the alleged JDEC infringer's will have a maloxx weekend replete with burning of the midnight oil. This poses serious problems for all of them me thinks. - And the determination of fraud by the jury in the Payne case just lost a good bit of luster too........ - How long before Judge Payne's apparent misguided Markman ruling in the INFX trial is overturned & a new trial is granted? - The 'experts' in the Micron trial appear to have an excellent background........ - They performed an exhaustive review that took in excess of 5 months to complete........... - These 'experts' came to an informed conclusion that RMBS patents are valid & that Micron indeed is infringing with SDRAM........ SDRAM is SDRAM the world over, so INFX & others may very well be infringing after all........... Judge Payne's less than qualified background & his less than in depth review of relevant material appear to leave his conclusions & subsequent rulings rather questionable me thinks. This severely hampered RMBS court case & limited what the jury could hear. The likelihood is that Judge Payne was wrong & the 'experts' who review Payne's INFX rulings on appeal will also reach the same conclusions as the 'experts' did in Italy. If so, perhaps Judge Payne's rulings were inappropriate & his subsequent limitations on the trial caused the jury to inappropriately conclude on the fraud charge as well. You may be technically right stating that RMBS was found guilty of fraud, but it appears this may yet be thrown out. In any event, the findings in the Italian court certainly reinforces RMBS patent claims substantially. That's MVHO & I'm sticking to it. Ö¿Ö ____________________________________________________________ ..............Rambus Patent Infringement Case Against Micron Technology Continues in Italy........ The court-appointed experts confirmed the validity of the Rambus patent in suit and determined that Micron's SDRAM products infringe the Rambus patent. Dr. Paolo Stucovitz and Dr. Giorgio Crovini, both members of the Roll of the Intellectual Property Attorneys and degreed engineers, were appointed as the technical experts by the Monza Court. Their technical examinations lasted over five months encompassing all pertinent prior art information and potential infringement of the Rambus patent by the Micron SDRAM products. Their exhaustive report concludes that Micron's SDRAM memory devices fall within the scope of the Rambus patent.............. .....said Geoff Tate, CEO of Rambus, ``........ we look forward to receiving a full hearing on our infringement case against Micron in Milan. Rambus is committed to protecting its intellectual property, and it is our right, as well as our obligation to our shareholders to take all the appropriate measures to protect our patented innovations.'' ........... biz.yahoo.com Ö¿Ö