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 (81832)	4/10/2002 9:22:20 AM
From: Ian Anderson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

It is allowed, it is normal, it is not fraudulent to add new claims to a patent, provided that the things you are claiming are already in the description. Last time I wrote a patent, that's exactly what my company's patent lawyer told me to do. Write a full description, put in some holding claims, to establish the filing date, then we can think at leisure about which think we think are novel and useful invention. There is nothing wrong with going to a meeting, discovering that another company has read your European application, and deciding to add to the claims, those things you already described which the other company has now demonstrated as useful by deciding to use them. I still think Rambus has a good chance of winning the appeal

To: SBHX who wrote (81832)	4/10/2002 10:02:35 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi Scared but Hopeful; Re: "I know what you're saying, but it is hard to imagine that anyone could be so inept." I used to think that Rambus wasn't criminal, but, rather, was mostly stupidity created by lack of native intelligence and blinding cupidity. But there does seem to be just too many indications that they knew exactly what they were doing. So I'm drifting towards agreeing with NightOwl on this. WHY DO CON ARTISTS SCAM? ... Con artists, particularly financial con artists who specialize in big cons such as High-Yield Investment Programs, Debenture Trading, phony Investment Clubs, and Boiler Room Telemarketing, are above average in intelligence. They are self-educated, and know how to be extremely sociable, although they are anti-social which means lacking any social conscience - they only use charm to achieve their ends. ... From the very moment a con artist targets his mark the con artist's entire arsenal of psychological manipulation is brought into play. The mark is moved from a position of control to one of no control over anything at all. The con artist moves into the position of supreme power, regardless of how powerful the mark may be in real life. How can this be? Because the mark is the only character in the play who hasn't a clue as to what is really happening. No one has given the mark a script to follow. The only choice given to him is to react to what the other players are saying and doing. Reality is gone, he just doesn't know it - his real world has been completely and effectively replaced with that of the con artist and his cronies. Smoke and mirrors. ... Permitting the insideman to show him how he can make a large amount of money dishonestly. Allowing the victim to make a substantial profit. Determing exactly how much he will invest. Sending him home for this amount of money. ... Forestalling action by the law. ... fraudaid.com It could also be "true believer syndrome", which some of the share holders are still in the thrall of: "The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder? ... It is possible that those suffering from true-believer syndrome simply do not believe that the weight of the evidence before them revealing fraud is sufficient to overpower the weight of all those many cases of supportive evidence from the past. The fact that the supportive evidence was largely supplied by the same person exposed as a fraud is suppressed. ... dcn.davis.ca.us Also see "wishful thinking" and "self-deception": dcn.davis.ca.us "In How We Know What Isn't So, Thomas Gilovich describes the details of many studies which make it clear that we must be on guard against the tendencies to 1. misperceive random data and see patterns where there are none 2. misinterpret incomplete or unrepresentative data and give extra attention to confirmatory data while drawing conclusions without attending to or seeking out disconfirmatory data 3. make biased evaluations of ambiguous or inconsistent data, tending to be uncritical of supportive data and very critical of unsupportive data. ... They misinterpreted data. They gave full attention to confirmatory data, but were unaware of or oblivious to disconfirmatory data. They sometimes were not aware that the way in which they were selecting data made it impossible for contrary data to have a chance to occur. They were adept at interpreting data favorably when either the goal or the data itself was ambiguous or vague. They were sometimes brilliant in arguing away inconsistent data with ad hoc hypotheses. ... dcn.davis.ca.us A personal favorite is this link: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments Justin Kruger, David Dunning, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, December 1999 Abstract People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities. ... It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. ... In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night, less than an hour after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. When police later showed him the surveillance tapes, Mr. Wheeler stared in incredulity. "But I wore the juice," he mumbled. Apparently, Mr. Wheeler was under the impression that rubbing one's face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to videotape cameras ( Fuocco, 1996 ). ... apa.org If you look on this thread you will see more than ample evidence of all these things. Re: "Tate's life must be hell right now if he realized had he done a few small things, there would be no way to make a case." The problem was that there were copies of incriminating documents all over the place. No "doucment control" program could have destroyed them all. It's blatantly illegal for lawyers to destroy stuff like that; I doubt that Tate even tried. So as soon as the attorney-client privilege was revoked Rambus was in deep doodoo. With the evidence from the attorneys, Infineon then knew exactly what questions to ask the employees. Think about it. You're sworn to tell the truth. Are you going to make a bald faced lie when you don't know what evidence Rambus' attorneys have given the opposition? Lawyers take notes. Lawyers keep them. You could get stuck in jail for perjury. I'd be quite surprised if the Judge didn't privately threaten some of the Rambus witnesses with jail time for perjury. It must have been obvious as hell that the jig was up in mid March. About the only insider sale after that was Harmon on April 27, but he (as Chief Financial Officer) may not have been aware of how bad the case had gone. The others were probably aware that they were in possession of material inside information and couldn't sell any more. -- Carl