Rambus jetzt kaufen! 01.10.03 bis $50 (Seite 89)

[neunelferjunkie]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 23.253.577 von Ville7 am 31.07.06 13:14:11

... aber wir, bzw. die amis, bewegen uns dezent in die richtung. vielleicht doch " buy the rumors..."

[Ville7]

Das vorbörsliche Feuerwerk in Deutschland (+5,33% oder 12,85 Euro = 16,43 Dollar) wird durch die INET Vorbörse Bid 15,10 zu Ask 16,29 NICHT bestätigt.

Wer auch immer da in D gerade kauft könnte den Einstiegszeitpunkt eventuell später bereuen.

[Ville7]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 23.252.569 von jethor tull am 31.07.06 11:42:20

Jethor,

was heisst Sorgen machen? Wer Rambus im Depot hat muss eigentlich mit allem rechnen. Nur bei diesem Kurs ist schon ziemlich viel negatives eingepreist und das Risiko lange nicht so hoch wie wenn jemand bei 40 Dollar und gleicher Infolage zulangt.

Payne hat sich in diesem Interview ziemlich Luft gemacht und gegen seine Kollegen (die das alles übrigens etwas anders sahen) geschossen.

Von daher bleibt die Frage: Wie isoliert ist Payne? Hat er Rückendeckung durch eine (korrupte) FTC oder läßt die den Fall gegen Auflagen an Rambus sausen. Im Prinzip können sie den Fall wieder aufrollen mit Paynes Argumenten. Dann würde der Fall irgendwann vor den Supreme Court landen, so wie der Schering Pluogh Fall, wo auch ein FTC Richter für Schering Plough entschieden hat, die Behörde aber in Revision ging.

Sollte die FTC klein beigeben, dann wäre eine große Hürde weg und Payne m.E. ein für alle mal eliminiert.

Warten wir die Entwicklungen ab ...

[jethor tull]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 23.251.429 von Ville7 am 31.07.06 10:10:08

Mehr dazu:


Top Stories From Law.com
Legal Technology

* Get Your New Firm on the Path to Proper Billing

In-House Counsel

* Pharmaceutical Companies Use Compliance Counsel for Relief From 'Off-Label' Inquiries

Small Firm Business

* Smaller Firm Resists Consolidation Trend

Last Name
First Name
Help | About Lawyer Locator
Federal Judge Attacks Rambus' Legal Tactics in Patent Cases

Julie O'Shea
The Recorder
July 28, 2006
Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions


Less than a week after a San Jose, Calif., federal judge slashed Rambus' $306 million award in its patent infringement case against Hynix Semiconductor Inc., another federal judge in Virginia piled on, criticizing the Los Altos, Calif., chip manufacturer's outside counsel.

In a searing 116-page opinion issued July 18, U.S. District Judge Robert Payne attacked Rambus' legal tactics in past patent cases against Samsung Electrics Co. and German chip company Infineon Technologies AG. The judge also discounted explanations of Rambus' conduct provided by IP litigator Daniel Johnson Jr. Johnson -- now a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius -- advised Rambus in the late 1990s as a lawyer at Cooley Godward.

Payne also criticized -- respectfully -- his San Jose judicial colleague Ronald Whyte, who had come to a different conclusion about Rambus' shredding of documents than Payne.

Payne's opinion came amid an attempt by Samsung to win attorney fees after Rambus filed patent infringement counterclaims against Samsung in Virginia.

In his opinion, Payne stated it is "quite clear" Rambus purposely shredded millions of pages of documents in the late 1990s as it was preparing to sue a slew of its rivals for infringing one of its chip design patents.

Of course, that isn't the first time Rambus had to deal with a shredding issue before Payne. In a prior patent infringement action against Infineon, Payne had ruled Rambus' shredding prevented the company from prosecuting its claims under the doctrine of "unclean hands."

Rambus promptly settled the Infineon case for $150 million -- before Payne's ruling could be published and become binding on other courts.

Last week, Payne didn't award Samsung the attorney fees it had sought. But he did find that Rambus destroyed documents, even as it planned litigation against its rivals.

In discussing Johnson's explanations of Rambus' shredding, Payne said the lawyer's "defensive and adversarial manner might be attributed in part to the fact that his advice to Rambus was incomplete."

"In Johnson's presentations to Rambus," Payne continued, "he failed to explain that spoliation could occur not only on the 'eve of litigation,' as he put it, but also if documents were destroyed when the company anticipated, or reasonably should have anticipated, litigation."

Johnson could not be reached by press time.

Rambus' John Danforth declined to publicly comment on Payne's opinion Wednesday, but the company issued a statement late in the day.

"While we agree with the decision that our payment of Samsung's attorney's fees is unwarranted, we disagree with other aspects of the opinion, which are inconsistent with those of the federal court here in San Jose," the statement read. "We are evaluating our options on how to proceed."

It is unclear how Payne's ruling will affect Rambus' litigation against other chipmakers. Samsung attorney David Healey Weil, Gotshal & Manges wasn't sure whether Payne's opinion would be published. But he said it is public.

"It's a final judgment, and it's binding," Healey said.

Payne's opinion came just four days after U.S. District Judge Whyte told Rambus it had a month to agree to drastically reduce its $306.9 million jury verdict against rival chip manufacturer Hynix or take its chances at a new damages trial.

In addition to Payne's harsh words for Johnson, he also took issue with Whyte's rulings. In Rambus' patent suit against Hynix, the San Jose judge had ruled Rambus did not have unclean hands because of the shredding.

"The Hynix decision appears to be significantly influenced by the view that 'the evidence here does not support the conclusion that Rambus intentionally designed its document retention policy to get rid of particular damaging documents,'" Payne wrote. "The record, it is respectfully submitted, shows quite clearly that Rambus acted intentionally to rid its files of discoverable documents because of the damage that such documents could do in litigation."


Ville, muß uns das Sorgen machen, nachdem Hager mit keinem Wort darauf eingegangen ist?

jethor

[Ville7]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 23.215.143 von pegun am 29.07.06 20:35:10

Der Mann ist persönlich in seiner Ehre gekränkt und/oder er ist bestochen.

So wie ich das verstanden habe kann er kein eigenes Urteil gegen Rambus herausbringen, er kann nur die "Fakten" des IFX Prozesses veröffentlichen, welche er irgendwie in dem Samsung = prevailing party Urteil mitschiebt.

Das wäre wieder Futter für die FTC. Wahrscheinlich besteht zwischen der Reaktion der FTC und Payne's "Fakten" ein Zusammenhang.

Ich kann es allerdings auch falsch verstanden haben, also keine Garantie.

[pegun]

Hallo,

erklär mit doch mal bitte einer, was Payne von uns will? Ich meine FH hat mal geschrieben, er könne uns nicht mehr gefährlich werden, stimmte das nicht? Ich habe das so versanden, daß Payne ein Urteil bezüglich der Unclean Hands ausgeben will, was dann Grundlage für andere Urtele wird. Wäre das nicht der Gau?

Gruß
Pegun

[Ville7]

Bin gerade etwas am Stöbern in IV.

Schön wärs wenn diese Meinung wahr wäre. Danforth macht sich frei um in einer anderen Rolle Settlements auszuhandeln. Und sein bisheriger Stellvertreter macht das operative Gerichtsbusiness. Alles nur Spekulation eines Investors. Das wäre nämlich auch in der alten Position gegangen.

-----------

Message: 5884 of 6331 posted 7/27/2006 8:34:27 PM

Recommend Hide Post Add to Favorites Report abuse
Author: rmbs_investor Send PM Ignore View Profile Recs: 17
Subject: Why Danforth's Move is Best for Rambus
Sentiment: Strong Buy

Danforth's employment with Rambus has been changed since October/05 as posted in their company releases. From those papers, I gathered that Rambus believes all the litigation will wind down in 2006/2007 at the latest. They need Danforth to manage those details and deal with their outside counsel.

The move today is not a demotion. For example, moving from CEO to Chairman is not a demotion. You lessen that day to day work but you actually have a higher profile. This is actually a promotion since Senior Legal Advisor can be more difficult than Litigation. To me, this signals that Rambus may be close to getting the cartel to agree to settle on the royalty rate established by Judge Whyte (4.25%). Rambus will not move Danforth if they believe there are many loose ends to tie up. Rambus will not change 'horses' in the middle of the race.

Hopefully, Rambus and Hynix will forego Phase 3 and settle before August 21/06. I believe there is a greater possibility for this happening now. I also think the FTC move to clear the deck with issuing the documents, may be very much linked to some work done in the background by Hynix, Micron, etc. If would be difficult to settle while the FTC suit is outstanding (instigated by Hynix and MU).

I believe with Danforth's years of experience with Rambus' legal details and having another person (Kramer) to do the litigation, Danforth can better serve to advise Rambus of other markets/business to go after; meaning, the work with the cartel, FTC, etc. should conclude sooner rather than later.

< EOM >

[Ville7]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 23.149.853 von jethor tull am 28.07.06 13:33:17

jethor, intels lizenz besagt intel darf alles nutzen was rambus bis zu lizenzende entwickelt hat. so auch xdr2. somit ist intel keineswegs m zugzwang.

erst wenn rambus ab jetzt was neues entwickelt und die konkurrenz droht diese dann hoffentlich überlegene technologie einzusetzen könnte intel wieder eine lizenz benötigen, sofern sie nicht auf was anderes setzen

ich bin mir sicher, dass bei rambus fleissig an noch schnelleren speichern gearbeitet wird - zur zeit bietet aber xdr noch genug potential und wird ja noch nicht mal vermarktet - sodass die notwendigkeit nach einer neuen technologie noch gar nicht da ist.

neue technologie -vll im rahmen von playstation 4 in etlichen jahren wird dann wahrscheinlich ein zusammenfügen mehrerer kleiner innovationen zu einem gesamtwerk. vielleicht nennensie es dann ultra-xdr

[Ville7]

Sorry kann aufgrund zeitmangel nicht übersetzen, hier wird spekuliert warum Danforth in ne andere Funktion gegangen ist.

Interessant finde ich die Theorie eines sich vielleicht abzeichnenden settlements zwischen FTC und Rambus mit Enigung darauf, dass Rambus seine Technologie zu "reasonable" Konditionen an die Industrie gibt.

Klingt plausibel, aber wer weiß was dieser korrupte Laden FTC (Rambus ist ja auch korrupt ) vorhat. Möglicherweise auch weiter maximalen Schaden anzurichten. Ist ja immer bezeichnend, dass Payne und FTC in letzter Zeit immer dann das Maul aufmachen wenn Rambus am Boden zu liegen scheint.

Payne hat sich übrigens neulich öffentlich gegen Rambus geäussert und seinen Kollegen Whyte scharf kritisiert. Schon krass, jemand der im Patentrecht keine großen Erfahrungen hat kritisiert einen der angesehensten Patentanwälte der USA.

Ich bin positiver Hoffnung für Rambus, auch wenn ich derzeit nicht mehr als Hoffnung habe.

--------------------------

Author: ketchikan06 Send PM Ignore View Profile Recs: 25
Subject: Re: Danforth and the FTC
Sentiment:
Posted as a reply to: msg 6204 by ODR


Would JD have stepped aside/down PRIOR to bad news from the FTC?

Would JD have said what he said in the prior CC re the FTC if bad news were coming?

Seems like JD knows what to expect from the FTC hence his stepping aside and his words in the June 1 Rambus analyst day where he said that a) the full commission is ready to rule imminently b) they will have to give deference to their own ALJ, as the SC instructed them and c) where it is important to Rambus (DDR and more advanced memories) there were multiple reasons why the ALJ ruled in Rambus favor and lots of corroborating documents to support his findings and that’s why he is confidant.

c above fits nicely to what Skip Oliva of "The Voluntary Trade Council" said about Rambus and the FTC > "Indeed, according to information I received from a knowledgeable source, Rambus and the FTC may be in settlement talks. The FTC commissioners are clearly looking for an exit strategy. FTC staff originally sought to invalidate the same Rambus patents at issue in the Hynix trial. Rambus isn’t about to give up the $307 million. But the company may agree to a face-saving deal with the FTC that mandates the licensing of patents on a “reasonable and non-discriminatory basis” to all memory manufacturers, a phrase broad enough to encompass a reading favorable to Rambus." <

http://voluntarytrade.org/blog/?p=34

(I think Rambus did in fact "gave up" a big chunk of the damages in efforts to expedite the proceedings and may be even as part of negotiation efforts…)

Surely he DOES KNOW what the decision is...?

I believe he does…

Will a pro-Rambus FTC decision be any of a catalyst in the near term? Any thoughts? Dramatic effect on the pps? Nothing?

I think a pro-Rambus FTC decision would be a signal for Settlements (probably Micron first) and the effect on the PPS will be dramatic.

Will a pro-Rambus FTC decision coming before 8/21 carry any weight with JW in Phase III?

I think the two cases are unrelated (Judge Whyte already dismissed all the AT assertions with the summery judgments of late) the only remaining issue is a Hynix specific contractual issue (the "other DRAM" clause) that will be countered successfully by Rambus in my opinion.

All is JMHO

< EOM >

Search the Investment Term Glossary

Keyword

Posted as a reply to: msg 6204 by ODR

[zentrader]

"...Robert Kramer, deputy general counsel, will serve as acting general counsel until that role is filled..."

Wie schon von Eric Clapton in seiner legendären nun schon über 30 Jahre alten Scheibe "461 Ocean Boulevard" angekündigt:
"...I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy, oh no..."

ciao,
zentrader