Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 3:44 PM EST - U.S. Markets close in 16 mins.

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • prufrock_80120 prufrock_80120 Mar 17, 2006 2:02 PM Flag

    The Trial

    What is going on in Whyte's courtroom?

    Furness tried mislead the jury. From everything we know of Judge Whyte he will not allow this sort of nonsense to occur in his courtroom. I'm betting he will make Hynix "pay" for this overt, incontravertible mistake. What will be most interesting to me is HOW he makes them pay. His use of the word "fact" may portend him including AT information. He cannot let Hynix get away with bold mendacy to the jurors. Once they are "tainted" there's no undoing it. Furness is just doing his job which is to plant doubt in the minds of the jury. Now, Stone must do his. My guess is there will be round-the-clock strategy meetings with Stone planning his counterattack.

    Judge Whyte must also do his job which IMO includes allowing Rambus to defend themselves, AND openly confronting Hynix that he knows what they are trying to do and there will be hell to pay if they continue. This recklessness on the part of Hynix may be an indication of how desperate they are, and to what extent they are willing to go to win. Their definition of a win might simply be a mistrial, obfuscation, obtaining a lower rate, or more delay. Somehow Whyte will know how to short circuit these smokescreens.

    Stone strikes me as one competitive passionate attorney. He got blindsided ironically in much the same way that Rambus has been decieved so many times over the years by the cartel. I think Stone will have a fierce agenda at Monday's meeting. If Whyte is as good as we all think he is, he'll be three steps ahead of Furniss come Monday. When he rereads the record he may see that there was a pattern of deception inherent in Furness's opening statement that built on his "manipulation" of Stone at the sidebar during Stone's opening. Did Judge Whyte sustained Furness's objection to naming the 4 persons because he was honoring the ground rules that forbade entering collusive conduct by Hynix? If so, doesn't Furness's transgressions create an entirely new playing field?

    What a mess Hynix has created. Maybe they created it on purpose to "taint" the trial, or to give them grounds for appeal. Regardless, Whyte has to find a way to prevent the whole magilla of antitrust from blowing up in his courtroom. If he let's some of it in how will he stop it ALL from coming in? If it all comes in Hynix will claim they aren't prepared for antitrust and perhaps push for a mistrial. This case could already be at a crossroads. Maybe some of our board attorneys can explain what Whyte might do.

    I don't know how he can not let Rambus defend themselves. He just can't allow the same old FUD that the cartel paid the press to disseminate to be spewed in his court. The lies have to be stopped! There is proof aplenty that RDRAM would have been priced fairly if the infringers hadn't conspired. There's proof aplenty of the nature of the conspiracy. Whyte knows it, Stone knows it by heart, and, of course Hynix knows it better than anyone. Maybe Judge Whyte can force Furness into retracting the lies and distortions. Wouldn't that be a hoot. "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I wasn't actually telling you the whole truth the other day in my opening comments. The truth is that the large manufacturers got together and tried to destroy Rambus because we didn't want to pay them for their discoveries"

    Should be interesting.



    Pruf

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • you got st pats and purim confused when you mentuined the whole megillah.

    • that they would see a mistrial and further delay RMB's day in court.They don't give a crap, they will do anything to string this thing out and confuse anyone and everyone including the jury,the judge and the press.

    • I think for the money we pay Stone, he shouldn't be "blindsided" by anything. He should have every possible corner covered and this irritates me his only response was to get angry. I don't know law, but I would have liked to see him objecting to Furniss as soon as Furniss said Jedec or RDRAM... Why was Furniss allowed to just go on and on and on about that.

      <<<Stone strikes me as one competitive passionate attorney. He got blindsided ironically in much the same way that Rambus has been decieved so many times over the years by the cartel.>>>

    • If it all comes in Hynix will claim they aren't prepared for antitrust and perhaps push for a mistrial.
      ---------------------------------------------
      Wait: they can't complain about opening a door and then not being prepared to defend the issue. The real agenda is, did they open a door to an issue they can obfuscate, then using that as the key central point, should they defeat it, confuse the jury into thinking the whole thing is a contrivance.

      The judge has to determine if this dangled worm is worth biting into--I think he will ask the jury to throw the whole thing out, and will not dismiss the trial...

    • First, recognize that juries are not so easily "tainted". Of course, on appeal, the appellate court will look closely at the evidence, and whether the evidence presented supports the findings of the jury.

      Second, Whyte can easily correct the statements that Hynix counsel made relative to the reasons RDRAM did not become the dominant standard by a simple instruction to the jury. The specific wording would be worked out by Whyte and counsel prior to bringing the jury in, but it would likely be something along the lines of:

      <<During Hynix' opening statement, certain statements were made that would tend to lead one to believe that RDRAM failed to be widely adopted due to technical problems and/or the royalties that Rambus was charging on RDRAM. First, it should be recognized and understood that why RDRAM was not adopted is of no consequence in this proceeding. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that RDRAM was not adopted for reasons other than technical problems and/or the royalty rates. Once again, the reason or reasons that RDRAM was not widely adopted as the "standard" memory is not at issue in this proceeding. The jury is hereby instructed to ignore any comments that have been made relative to the failure of RDRAM.>>

      Opening the AT issue merely complicates the entire situation....something that benefits neither Hynix not Rambus.

      • 4 Replies to HarFar99
      • Nice try HarHar, but this is not going to fly. Judge Whyte can't undo the damage by making the mystery deeper.

        He is going to have to let Rambus tell the story of the JRA and the joint decison to litigate rather than pay, and allow the evidence that the cartel knew they infringed and were looking to avoid payment, or something very close to that, IMO.

        It is the only way to undo the damage, and resurrect Stone and Rambus credibility before the Jury.

      • Of course, on appeal, the appellate court will look closely at the evidence, and whether the evidence presented supports the findings of the jury
        -----------------------------------------------
        The appellate court may look at a lot of things, but whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to make a finding is absurd--appellate courts do not hold themselves as having the "right" answers to this evidenciary test.

        There are a zillion reasons to appeal anything, second guessing the jury's evaluation based on the court's instruction isn't one of them.

      • <<During Hynix' opening statement, certain statements were made that would tend to lead one to believe that RDRAM failed to be widely adopted due to technical problems and/or the royalties that Rambus was charging on RDRAM. First, it should be recognized and understood that why RDRAM was not adopted is of no consequence in this proceeding. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that RDRAM was not adopted for reasons other than technical problems and/or the royalty rates. Once again, the reason or reasons that RDRAM was not widely adopted as the "standard" memory is not at issue in this proceeding. The jury is hereby instructed to ignore any comments that have been made relative to the failure of RDRAM.>>


        Now there's a novel legal procedure. A judge, respected and honorable at that, addressing the jury on the topic of "substantial evidence" that was never introduced or even hinted in the trial.

        Any lawyers on this board???

      • Sir,

        I agree with your conclusion. And I think what you surmise is likely to take place when the proceedings resume next week.

        Cordially,

        tonkjezail

    • prufrock wrote: >>>Did Judge Whyte sustained Furness's objection to naming the 4 persons because he was honoring the ground rules that forbade entering collusive conduct by Hynix? If so, doesn't Furness's transgressions create an entirely new playing field?<<

      Pruf, nice post, as usual. Your rhetorical questions above reminded of something I omitted from my notes.

      During the heated exchange after Furniss's opening remarks, JW gave a bit more insight into what occurred during the sidebar where Stone claims he was setup.

      He said that he agreed with Stone in that it seemed that Furniss had agreed to keep all references to the JRA stuff out of this trial. JW said he was glad that Stone and Furniss were able to work it out between them without him having to rule since he was 'on the fence' on this issue.

      So, it seems as if Furniss agreed to something and, in return, Stone agreed to not talk about the meeting of the Fab 4. JW never sustained nor overruled Furniss's objection.

      Also, I don't believe the sidebar conference is documented in the transcripts since they usually talk very quietly where the court reporter cannot hear their conversation. Therefore, JW's memory will be all he has to recall this conversation.

      Mark

    • Pruf,

      You are one of my favorite posters! The way you put into words what many of us Rambus longs feel. Just wanted to say thanks.

      For the new Rambus investor, I would reccomend reading one of your old post called "hovering"
      Great read. (post #885027)Read all three parts.

      Rambus Dream'n, Sam

    • Maybe Judge Whyte could allow Hynix to plead guilty to this infringement phase - right now.

      It sounds like they are chomping at the bit to get to the validity phase anyway.

      If they don't want to make any points about how their designs don't infringe...sao be it.

      They can put their faith in getting ALL the patents and claims invalidated.

      Good Luck.

 
RMBS
11.56+0.01(+0.09%)3:44 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.