Sat, Aug 23, 2014, 5:49 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • dizzyal2000 dizzyal2000 Nov 7, 2011 2:58 PM Flag

    SPOILATION

    Let's clear one thing up.

    Spoilation simply means that someone destroyed some documents past a time when the court says documents should have been saved. Spoilation does not mean that any of the destroyed documents were EVIDENCE of anything pertaining to the case at hand or caused any harm to the opposing litigant.

    The CAFC has not said that Micron was harmed by spoilation, only that they may have been, and that Rambus DEFINITELY was harmed by Judge Robinson's over zealous ruling given that she showed no evidence that spoilation was harmful to Micron. CAFC said clearly that Rambus' case should have been heard, not thrown out.

    That's why the case was sent back to her, for her to show that her ruling was based on evidence. Otherwise, in the view of CAFC, it was not, and the case must be heard. It's in Judge Robinson's lap to show actual evidence presented by Micron that they cannot defend themselves due to EVIDENCE being destroyed. So far, no one has seen anything like that from Micron.....and in my opinion they never will.

    In other words, basher friends, Judge Robinson's ruling was not upheld, and if she can't come up with a nuclear bomb, Rambus' case against Micron will go forward.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You are correct dizzyal, all this funny. Opinions flying left and right but the results will not be influenced by any of this. A whole heck of a lot of fun to me.
      It will be what it be!!!

      • 1 Reply to xquestor
      • They'd rather revel in Ramscam's BS about how it "produced" all of the materials it shredded and degaussed because the FTC intercepted Crisp's attempt to dispose of his copies of incriminating e-mails and presentations and raided Roberts' home to confiscate other copies of incriminating information he had stored there or that materials they neglected to shred came to light after their claims of "attorney client privilege" were pierced when their perjury made clear that there was reason to believe that they were involved in perpetrating a crime by fraud.

        All that should work out real well if they can get "sinjay" elevated from his mommy's basement to the federal judicial bench in Delaware.

    • YES; lets clear some things up!

      You and your fellow Ramboids are either just plain dumb or so deeply invested in RMBS that you will controvert the truth, hoping that it becomes true. The facts from testimony are not in favor of an ultimate RMBS win.

      Have you ever wondered why the RMBS litagation has hit a brick wall and no other companies are being sued? The statute of limitations is running as is the time limit on any possible valid patents. RMBS will be a bad memory from the past for the RAMBOIDS!

      XQ

    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Nov 7, 2011 8:43 PM Flag

      http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/050810ccmosanctions.pdf

      G. Organize 1999 shredding party at Rambus”); CCSF 75-92. Contrary to the advice of
      outside litigation counsel, however, Mr. Karp did not take steps to ensure that documents
      relevant to anticipated litigation were preserved. CCSF 90-92, 103-108.

      Instead, Mr. Karp insisted on the wholesale destruction of any and all documents not deemed helpful to Rambus.

      Rambus’s document retention policy required Rambus employees to search out and
      maintain evidence that might be useful to Rambus in litigation, such as documents relating to
      patent disclosures and proof of invention dates that are of “great value to Rambus,” as well as
      material relating to trade secrets. CCSF 100-102; RX-2503. In sharp contrast, however,
      Rambus’s document retention policy never once mentioned any obligation to preserve any other
      documents relevant to litigation. CCSF 103-104. Despite the fact that the policy was created as
      part of a litigation and licensing plan to obtain royalties over JEDEC-compliant DRAM, and
      despite Rambus’s awareness that its past presence at JEDEC gave rise to substantial risk pursuant
      to equitable estoppel and the Commission’s Dell consent decree, Rambus included no warning
      whatsoever in its document retention policy to retain documents relating to JEDEC or to
      anticipated litigation. Id. Thus, Rambus’s document retention policy invited, indeed required, Rambus employees to carefully preserve evidence potentially helpful to Rambus in its upcoming
      litigation, and to engage in the wholesale destruction of everything else. And that is precisely
      what Rambus employees did……

      But that was not enough. Concerned that some documents might have escaped the purge,
      Mr. Karp ensured that part of Rambus’s “Licensing/Litigation Readiness” in 1999 was to
      “Organize 1999 shredding party at Rambus.” CX5045; CCSF 58-59. As with the 1998 “Shred
      Day,” Rambus employees were instructed to comply strictly with the document retention policy
      when deciding what documents to keep and what documents to throw away. CCSF 106. Rambus
      collected another 150 burlap bags full of documents to be shredded, requiring the professional shredding company over four hours to complete the job. CCSF 61. At Mr. Karp’s instruction,
      outside counsel Lester Vincent also conducted a “clean-up” of his files that continued through
      1999 and into 2000, with plans to do more in 2001. CCSF 56-57; 128-133. The only files he
      neglected were his “chron” files. Id.

      In the fall of 1999, immediately after Shred Day 1999, Rambus finalized its plans for
      litigation and picked its targets. CCSF 37-42. Rambus sent an assertion letter to Hitachi on
      October 22, 1999, and filed suit against Hitachi in January 2000.

      • 1 Reply to gregory.lynn
      • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Nov 7, 2011 8:43 PM Flag

        CCFF 1953, 1995. In the
        spring of 2000, Rambus notified four other DRAM manufacturers and at least one video card
        manufacturer of alleged infringement of its patent claims. CCFF 1954-1958. Rambus settled its
        lawsuit with Hitachi in June 2000, but starting in August 2000 began litigation with other
        DRAM manufacturers, some of which continues today. CCFF 2015-2018 (Infineon), 2019
        (Hynix), 2020 (Micron).
        During this period, after threatening to sue manufacturers of JEDEC-compliant SDRAM
        and DDR SDRAM for alleged infringement of specific Rambus patents claiming priority back to
        the time when Rambus was a JEDEC member, Rambus and its agents continued to destroy
        documents. Vice President Neil Steinberg instructed Rambus executives to destroy all drafts of
        contracts and negotiation materials on July 17, 2000. CCSF 63. Mr. Vincent, after briefly
        ceasing his file cleaning when the Hitachi case was filed, began destroying documents once again
        as soon as the case settled in June 2000. See CX5036 (listing patent files cleaned up and
        “reviewed” by Vincent on June 23, 2000); CCSF 62.
        On December 28, 2000, while in active litigation with Infineon, Micron and Hynix, and
        the day before receiving official notice from FTC staff of the Commission’s investigation,
        Rambus executed the biggest Shred Day of all. See Response of Complaint Counsel to the
        Commission’s Order Regarding Designation of the Record Pertaining to Spoliation of Evidence……

        On December 28, 2000, while in active litigation with Infineon, Micron and Hynix, and
        the day before receiving official notice from FTC staff of the Commission’s investigation,
        Rambus executed the biggest Shred Day of all. See Response of Complaint Counsel to the
        Commission’s Order Regarding Designation of the Record Pertaining to Spoliation of Evidence by Rambus (filed Dec. 22, 2004), Attachment F. As with Rambus’s other document shredding
        events, on this day no instructions were given to employees to ensure that they did not destroy
        documents relevant to Rambus’s patent litigation. CCSF 107. Instead they were required to
        conform to the same document retention policy as always. Id. On December 28, 2000, Rambus
        destroyed 460 burlap bags of documents, bringing the grand total of documents destroyed during
        Rambus’s “shred days” and “office cleanings” to 795 burlap bags and 60 boxes of documents.
        CCSF 64; see also DX0501 at 72-75 (by Infineon’s calculations, the volume of documents
        destroyed by Rambus since it began anticipating litigation exceeded 2.7 million pages).
        9

    • I have to disagree somewhat with your latest post.

      Robinson was reversed because she misunderstood and ignored the law governing the consequences of spoliation.

      The CAFC reversed her on the law. It does not find facts on it's own and reverse her by substituting its own judgment on the facts. Not its role. The district court is the primary fact finder.

      Point is there were NO FACTS presented on the effects of spoliation, on specific harm, if any. to Micron, on the severity of the harm, on the degree of bad faith, etc. She simply assumed bad faith and major harm.
      That's why she is a biased and incompetent judge who reacts viscerally and consequently gets reversed all the time.

      Micron presented no evidence on the above subjects either, because it likely has none. It simply cried shredding, shredding, and that is not enough.
      It's their responsibility to particular present evidence on the subject, not the Judge's, a common misconception on this board, and even in her own mind, when she is quoted as saying "my work (on this) is almost done". Not her work at all.

      And it is definitely not the CAFC's roleitself to determine without any evidence form the proceeding below anything about Micron, good or bad, at this point. Even less so at their level than on her's.
      The references to MU in your post are misplaced.

      • 1 Reply to sinjay56
      • and attempts to conceal not only the extent of their document destruction campaign and the fact that it was intended to tailor available evidence to conform to claims they planned to assert had a bit of a downside impact on their scheme to abuse the court system and legal process to gain what their "products", such as they were, failed to give them the ability to get.

        Does mommy know that you're wasting time playing lawyer on the Internet instead of doing your homework again?

    • I'm not sure your take is correct. I think being found to have spoliated a thing is more than merely "that someone destroyed some documents past a time when the court says documents should have been saved." I believe in some (if not most) jurisdictions it can mean that the thing destroyed was relevant to the legal proceedings at issue, and in some jurisdictions can generally be regarded as proof of guilt.

      The CAFC remanded for JR to supply more information, but they did not say that the remedy she gave was not possible/allowable. They just said more support was needed, and if she could not provide such support, then the remedy would have to change. Additionally, they did not say that Micron was unharmed by the spoliation. If that were the case, they would have thrown out her ruling. They did not.

      IMHO

      • 1 Reply to duke1parkway
      • You say tomato, I say tomaato.

        You say CAFC did not say Micron was unharmed.....I say CAFC did not say Micron was harmed.

        You say Judge Robinson has to provide SUPPORT....I say Judge Robinson has to provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE from the already existing case.
        ----------------------------------------------------------

        The bottom line for me is, if Micron was harmed by destruction of ACTUAL EVIDENCE which will offer some proof that Rambus' patents are unenforecable, at least provide some believable idea of what that evidence might be. In 8 years they've never given us one hint.

        The other bottom line is that price fixing is illegal regardless of spoilation, rape, murder, or bank robbery. Price fixing is not a legal remedy for spoilation. Rambus could have destroyed every piece of paper in California and three other states, and that still would not relieve Micron and Hynix from adhereing to AT laws.

    • You are absolutely correct in these comments.

      Please see mine in support, under the recent Danforth
      post.

    • It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you think the word is "spoilation". Shoulda just stuck to "shredding".

 
RMBS
11.84-0.05(-0.42%)Aug 22 4:00 PMEDT

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.