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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • poopspot2 poopspot2 Oct 6, 2011 5:33 PM Flag

    Nvda says screw you rambust

    Destroying evidence again!!!!!!!!!!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • gregory.lynn Oct 9, 2011 3:30 AM Flag

      What Conduct Constitutes Unclean Hands.

      A plaintiff’s inequitable conduct in connection with the matter in controversy provides a complete defense to the plaintiff’s action. (Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 436, 446.) Conduct is sufficient to constitute unclean hands if it “violates conscience, or good faith, or other equitable standards of conduct.” (Id.) The doctrine of unclean hands also applies to bad faith conduct by the plaintiff in connection with the matter in controversy.

    • mikaeljoh Oct 7, 2011 12:25 AM Flag

        The ALJ found spoliation , they did not find bad faith and NVDA could not show they were prejudice in anyway, so unless this court wants to make fools of themselves the last thing they will do is remand this back to the ITC and ask them and RMBS to go on a witch hunt.

      • 1 Reply to mikaeljoh
        Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex
        (January 22,2010)

        "The ALl makes one last observation regarding Rambus's assertion that the document
        retention policy was to clean up the work area or that they had become packrats to such an extent
        that it was necessary. If that were the case, there would have been no reason whatsoever to have
        their outside patent counsel purge their files, as those files were not on Rambus's property. The
        only reason to purge any outside files takes us back to the fact Ranibus was not following a
        standard industry practice, they were getting "battle ready."

        "Staff has suggested that there is an issue as to whether "bad faith" or a lesser standard of
        negligence should apply to a determination of whether there was spoliation of evidence. The
        ALl finds no such issue. The ALl finds the evidence of Rambus' intention to destroy evidence
        for purposes of preparing the company for litigation overwhelming and that the destruction was
        intentional and in bad faith. Rambus's evidence to the contrary cannot withstand even the most
        fundamental inquiry, based on the documents and statements of its own personnel."


        You appear to be a potential customer for a soft, absorbent Rambus crying towel (pat. pending).

    • gregory.lynn Oct 6, 2011 8:08 PM Flag

      What happens if Judge Robinson dismisses the case, and rules that there was enough evidence to show that Rambutt acted in bad faith when they committed spoliation?

      Do other cases such as RMBS v NVDA get to use unclean hands defense? I wonder what happens if the jury in the AT case hasn't finished deliberating, would McBride take away any award given by the jury?

      Anybody want to take a crack at this, I'm no lawyer and I'd sure like to know.

12.10+0.14(+1.17%)May 31 4:00 PMEDT