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: Rich1 who wrote (87214)	11/30/2003 11:30:07 AM
From: hdl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

almost 12 million shares traded

To: Rich1 who wrote (87214)	11/30/2003 11:36:26 AM
From: Pat Hughes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Its not somebody knows something. When THIS case was announced people started to realize that Rambus will probably "win" at the FTC. (I ALWAYS thought so ......but hey us bar people are gifted) Impact of the Unocal Initial Decision by: carrera_from_avn 11/30/03 02:11 am Msg: 554976 of 555016 If McGuire accepts the conclusions of law in the Unocal ID as correct, I do not believe he can rule against Rambus. Begin with reading the allegations of the Unocal complaint highlighted in the Unocal ID on pages 59-60, paragraph E.2(i), and particularly the last paragraph. In addition, review the five “Violations” alleged, the Notice of Contemplated Relief, and paragraphs 50-59 in the Unocal complaint. Compare these with the allegations of the Rambus complaint, and particularly paragraphs 2, 33-38, 43-49, 60-62, 107, the three Violations alleged, and Notice of Contemplated Relief. Then concentrate on the Unocal ID generally (as you know) at pages 59-67 and specifically at: (1) page 61, last two sentences of paragraph E.2(ii); (2) page 62, last two sentences of the page; and (3) page 65, last paragraph to 66, first two sentences. I do not believe it is possible for complaint counsel in Rambus to prevail without proving the existence of the allegations in the paragraphs of its complaint against Rambus referred to above. Plainly, the holding of the Unocal ID precludes consideration of these allegations against Rambus based upon lack of jurisdiction. (It is uncanny how similar the allegations are against Unocal and Rambus.) I was initially troubled by this feeling that it just couldn't be this simple. Was there a way that McGuire could (if he wanted) conclude that whether Rambus subverted a standard setting organization through a pattern of bad faith conduct only “obliquely hint[ed] at patent law issues?” Could certain inferences be made in Rambus' favor that removed the necessity of considering “substantial questions of patent law?” Even if this may be suggested to be the case in the most tenuous, abstract terms with regard to the disclosure obligations and “good faith” requirements supposedly imposed on Rambus, in order to prevail, a fundamental legal premise is that complaint counsel must prove not only liability, but also damage. Stating the obvious in light of the substantial devotion to the topic by both parties, damage cannot be proven without a full and complete analysis of the underlying patent issues. (See, for example, complaint counsel's Post Hearing Brief, pages 6, 11-13, 64-67, 75-77, 101-107, and most fittingly, page 79, last paragraph.) Ironically, complaint counsel candidly admits in its Post Hearing Brief, at page 25: “... this case involves patent-related issues ....” Therefore, I do not know how McGuire can rule against Rambus based upon the allegations of the complaint and relief requested in a manner consistent with the Unocal ID. The only possible exception would be if McGuire rules on the merits of the case against Rambus without considering the jurisdiction question because the FTC's jurisdiction was never objected to by Rambus. Although this may be technically true, as a judge, he has the affirmative obligation to raise the jurisdiction question on his own motion. Ultimately, as a result, I now expect a ruling in Rambus' favor. I do not, however, possess a monopoly on all good legal thinking and could be wrong.