The jury has already seen this one:
“No problem! We want DDR to explode into the marketplace so have actually been requesting Infineon, Samsung and Hynix to lower their DDR pricing to help it become a standard (and drive Rambus away completely.)” Linda Turner of Micron 6-5-2001.
But now we have so much more as this got into evidence and in front of the jury, thanks to Mr. Durcan today:
Micron’s Sadler wrote on January 20, 2000 ”Their [Compaq’s] roadmaps on CDT show main memory going to both RDRAM and PC133 and consumer going to RDRAM and DDR. ..What can/should we do now to assure PC133 and DDR solutions are adopted if this is the case?” An April 2000 Intel “Memory Update” presentation showed plans for a “rapid SDRAM to RDRAM transition” in most workstation segments and future plans to transition mobile memory from SDRAM to RDRAM.” The presentation noted, “Memory Strategy Overview still very uncertain environment The Key issue is Cost/Premium of RDRAM Next few months are critical Current Roadmap still is best choice. It also stated, “Roadmap will Change…Make RDRAM a strategic advantage Our strategy depends on Not enabling DDR in DT (desktops).
A February 1, 2000 email said in the first half of 2000, Dells’ Maureen Blando indicated that Dell could only obtain RDRAM for 14% of its total DRAM demand and “would sell conservatively another 10% of TAM if we could get the supply.” Ms. Blando believed that Dell would be able to obtain more RDRAM in the second half of 2000 and projected that it would need RDRAM for 25-30% or its market, or up to 40% if RDRAM prices were to fall.
In a February 16, 2000 email, a Micron sales representative reported that he had “just talked to someone at Samsung who said that Compaq is pressing hard for Rambus support” and that Compaq had made a “sooner than expect technology switch (towards Rambus) based on the apparent success Dell is having.” Rather than meet customer demand, Micron held firm in its refusal to supply RDRAM and chose instead to manipulate SDRAM and DDR prices in an effort to “sink RDRAM”. A January 1, 2000 email by Micron’s VP of Sales urged his sales and marketing executives to find “the SDRAM price points relative to RDRAM that sink RDRAM.”
MU might have a fighting chance in this matter were it not for the comments and actions of VP of Sales Mike "5th Amendment" Sadler and VP of International Sales Linda "it was only sarcasm" Turner.
He sleeps with the Ramscam stock shares he bought twelve years ago under his pillow hoping that the lawsuit fairy (played by clarissamehitable of Investor Bunker fame) will replace them some day with little gold coins as a reward for his faithfulness.
(A little background on "clarissa":
**Rambus wasn't very good at developing technology either. It just sucks even worse at the barratry game.**
MU signed a contract with Rambus to produce, support and sell RDRAM. MU didn't do it. Instead, they sabotaged every effort for RDRAM to succeed in the market place via price fixing with "competitors" and by taking the $500M given to them by Intel specifically for migrating to RDRAM production and instead used the money to finance big losses from undercutting the price of SDRAM and DDR intended to price RDRAM out of existence. It would have worked too if not for raising prices by 3x on DDR once Rambus was off Intel's roadmap.
Your comments are poor rationalization for MU and Hynix' criminal conduct. This is America and no one is above the law. Now the cartel will pay dearly. Sad that it had to come to this.
If I have the time line correct, Turner made that communication at a time when there was collusion to hold non-RDRAM prices high. There where never any charges of price fixing after that communication, just before it.
What was the date of that communication? Is that the communication that was asking for the end of the collusion caused price increase?
You can construe the comment about RMBS as just a reflection of what would happen under free market conditions.
You have selectively omitted the fact that this comment was from Linda Turner. Ms Turner is not and has never been a vice president of Micron. I have verified this by reviewing every SEC filing since 1998. She was an employee but that is all. What she may or may not have asked the competitors to do is not automatically a conspiracy. There has to be agreement. Even you called this a "request." The agreement part of this argument is totally unproven. Prices for memory fell, then rose, then fell and rose again. If you review the history fo DRAM prices, you see this volatility, always.
Samsung was at least a year ahead of Micron in .13u process, which was key to producing "high quality" RDRAM with a high enough yield to be profitable.
Not all DRAM manufacturers could make the multi billion dollar investment during an economic down cycle, semis being highly cyclical.
What you are ignoring is what is not being told to you by UTPT, which is the truth about the technology, and the economic conditions, and the design flaws in the product. Latency killed RDRAM, then Intel did a coup de grace.
I realize even as I write this that Ramboids will not understand and go right back to the email as proof of conspiracy and not even attempt to look for the truth.
In writing from the Vice President of international Sales, Micron:
..."have actually been requesting Infineon, Samsung and Hynix to lower their DDR pricing to help it become a standard (and drive Rambus away completely.)”
Are you really stupid enough to deny this is a price fixing request?
I am constantly amazed by the numerous comments that basically claim Micron was somehow obligated to make/sell RDRAM. No company, in any industry, has to provide a product, regardless of the demand. Moreover, at the time there were several large DRAM makers (Samsung, Hynix, Infineon, Elpida and Micron), all were approximately the same size (between 15% and 25% market share), all of whom made RDRAM, except Micron. It is clear to me that it was not "supply" that these compuer makers wanted, it was "cheap supply." Any company can freely pass on that kind of request. What I find most mystifying is how anyone can believe that Micron, the only non-RDRAM producer, was able to convince the other makers of RDRAM to stop making RDRAM. It is simply absurd. Mu is guilty as hell of trying to price fix SDR and DDR, but it was price fixing to raise or hold prices, not to lower them. The documents are clear on this.
I own neither stock nor have any positionon either. Just an intereting thing to watch. Objectivity is the key to success.
Wrong,wrong, wrong and wrong.
"I am constantly amazed by the numerous comments that basically claim Micron was somehow obligated to make/sell RDRAM. No company, in any industry, has to provide a product, regardless of the demand."
Wrong. Micron was under contract with Rambus to make best efforts to produce, promote and sell RDRAM. Micron took $500M of Intel's money for the purpose of tooling up to produce RDRAM.
"What I find most mystifying is how anyone can believe that Micron, the only non-RDRAM producer, was able to convince the other makers of RDRAM to stop making RDRAM."
Wrong. How about this for proof that MU was behind the "kill Rambus" move:
“No problem! We want DDR to explode into the marketplace so have actually been requesting Infineon, Samsung and Hynix to lower their DDR pricing to help it become a standard (and drive Rambus away completely.)” Linda Turner VP of Internationl Sales at Micron 6-5-2001.
"Mu is guilty as hell of trying to price fix SDR and DDR, but it was price fixing to raise or hold prices, not to lower them. The documents are clear on this."
Wrong. You missed this by a mile. The email above confirms that the cartel (MU included) were fixing prices on DDR and SDRAM low to kill RDRAM, then once accomplished, jacked prices way up. Tripled DDR prices in fact, then got caught when Michael Dell reported "cartel like activities". That's where dishonesty and greed get you.
"I own neither stock nor have any positionon either. Just an intereting thing to watch. Objectivity is the key to success."
Wrong. Why would you post night and day on the MU board if you have no position in MU. Why would you come here as well? I find your comment that you own no position in eithr stock so you are therefor more "objective" to be let's just say, less than reliable.