" my point is he had a hearing so lets have it"
I hear you, and I've posted earlier that I'm split on what to do If I had control.
I feel pretty confident that Whyte will rule mostly in Rmbs favor, or I'd be lobbying %100 for a settlement.
We have been blindsided before so with that in mind, a bird in hand is not unreasonable, as long is its a big fat bird.
<No one is "calling" for that. They are just predicting it.>
yern remember when you are making your predictions don't forget the rmbs flash and cell phone patents. bwahahahahaahhaah lmao
I beleive Greg Stone made it very clear that Rambus wants a ruling on spoliation. Without that they will be litigating each bandito seperately, which will be quite inefficient in the courts.
*** ...people continue to say what the judge wants and the only thing he should want is to see that the law of the land is up held in his court. ***
I agree with your perspective.
As to those calling for or wishy-washy pronouncement to encourage settlement first, I would say this. That will not bring settlement. Right now the certainty of what eventually will be resolved is not there. Until that certainty comes into sharper focus it is cheaper for the amigos to pay attorney fees. Once the certainty of royalties is more sharply in focus then they will negotiate. So, at the very least, Whyte must say to them that there is no spoliation. Then the probability of court awards and triple damages will be in sharper focus and will be weighed by either side and some settlement will be crafted. If Whyte does not so rule, Rambus will not have anything to negotiate with.
"Spec, that analogy might be a little bit of a stretch.
It describes a move AFTER the decision is rendered."
agreed . my point is he had a hearing so lets have it .
people continue to say what the judge wants and the only thing he should want is to see that the law of the land is up held in his court .
"it simerlar to a judge that hands down lite sentences and says its because of no prison space"
Spec, that analogy might be a little bit of a stretch.
It describes a move AFTER the decision is rendered.
This scenario is a little different because a ruling is still forthcoming, and has the effect of making both parties think about their position.
Judge Whyte must know they are close enough that a nudge from him will satisfy them.
I think this is consistant " a nudge" with what the law allows, but I'm not a lawyer.
"More than likely he is just trying to do what he can to minimize the Court time and expense for everyone. "
thats not his # 1 job .its to pass judgement and uphold the law .
it simerlar to a judge that hands down lite sentences and says its because of no prison space . if the judge wanted to be in controle of the prisons then maybe he should be a warden .
"Think if Rambus holds out they will get a clean ruling from Whyte"
i don't know for sure however if it against rmbs so be it . again it would be the sooner the better . so i can move on or rmbs can appeal either way lets get on with it .