Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 8:47 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • rambusince99 rambusince99 Aug 30, 2011 9:38 PM Flag

    MU's big mouth sinks MU...

    He can't testify to any of the price fixing and collusion though can he? He was put up there as a pawn, and got shredded in the process.

    Put the people up there that can actually defend MU's conduct- the ones that were in charge at the time of the events. The three that need to stop hiding in Boise and take the witness stand in SF are Appleton, Sadler, and Turner. Where are they?

    The biggest price fixing case in history, and they don't show up to defend MU? What's a jury to think???

    The jury was underwhelmed with Durcan.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You call it the biggest price fixing case in history, it is so only because RMBS asked for 4 billion imaginary $.

      The real fact is the product sucked was doomed to fail because it was inefficient and expensive.

      4 billion is a joke... Expecting MU to pay who did not even make RDRAM is even a bigger joke. MU didn't make RDRAM because they could not make a profit on it, the same reason intel choose to move away from RDRAM.

      It is easy, RMBUT just can not see the forest from the trees.

      • 1 Reply to jrkkek
      • Wrong on all accounts. What your beloved MU really did, as gleemed from the testimony from MU's Mr. Durkin on the stand today, was to take $500M of Intel money to produce RDRAM, and then collude with the rest of the cartel to see to it that RDRAM failed having never produced ANY RDRAM:

        Q. There came a time Intel invested in MU.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Let me refer to you to page 6 of the agreement. It refers to RDRAM by name.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Page 7 of 28. Price shown you and says capacity for .18 process technology.
        A. He said he sees that.
        Q. Qualify expenditures were defined in the agreement
        A. Yes.
        Q. Williams reads the agreement – on capital for rdram and other devices. Later it says volume manufacturing for rdram devices. You see that? Are you aware that the agreement refers to other dram by name on this agreement?
        A. He said RDRAM is call out specifically called for optics for Intel to have some OmFFS to rdram.
        Q. Does MU have truthful press releases?
        A. He said truthful.
        Q. Micron press release on top of this page?
        A. Yes.
        Q. It says we are pleased, Appleton said. That the investment of part of Intel’s strategy to supply PC growth to drive adoption of RDRAM.
        A. He said can you point me to it on the article?
        Q. He was pointed to that. Appleton said RDRAM products available for shipment as of first quarter of 1999. Barrett said MU was a leader and a leading edge maker. Barret did not say MU was to lag the market and wait and see attitude. No Barrtt said particular to supply RDRAM.
        A. He said this was a Barret quote not MU.
        Q. Williams said MU agreed to this press release, right?
        A. Yes.


        You can't admit what is right in front of you. MU conspired to kill Rambus in the market. If Rambus was going to die on its own, MU would not have wasted its' time and committed felony price fixing.

        What kind of company takes a half-billion dollars from Intel to produce RDRAM, then never produces it? Why didn't they just say no to the money. Why did they conspire to kill RDRAM? Because they were afraid of RDRAM and losing power and control. That will be the downfall of MU.

12.25+0.18(+1.49%)Feb 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

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.