Mon, Sep 22, 2014, 8:39 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 51 mins.

Recent

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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • smyuvraj smyuvraj Nov 11, 2011 10:19 AM Flag

    Is mistrail and/or hung jury possible?

    I truly believe that any reasonable person (Jury is supposed to reason), will be confronted with the following narrative:

    Two HYNX/MU North American executives met to DRAM discuss prices and state of affairs. While that was illegal from antitrust perspective there is no evidence that this led to price fixing conspiracy against RMBS (BTW - entire industry knows this as fact). There is simply no testimony and/or empirical data that MU/HYNIX did OR could have fixed prices to kill RMBS. It was not in their hands and this simply could not happen. Finally, Intel testified that they discontinued relationship with RMBS based on their own technical and business assessment!

    SO while some jurors may wish to act one way or another, perhaps just slap MU/HYNX with small judgement as a punishment, there is no real basis in fact!

    Its entirely possible that jurors will be happy to let this end in a mistrail or hung jury so RMBS has a chance to close this "evidence gap" and live for another day! That maybe the best they can agree on as favor to RMBS!

    Do you think such a scenario is possible?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Really, nothing more then two Hynx and Mu guys just discussing prices.
      OH, so Sansong, the largest Electronic company in the world
      just felt like giving RAmbus 900 million dollars to stay out of court.
      What a bunch of nice people they must be.
      Sell it somewhere else.

    • After this length of deliberation, the chances are very very slim that they are still arguing guilt now. They gave indications to the judge that things were going well. They are deciding on damages. Maybe the damages will be minimal. But anyone who thinks about this in a logical way will admit that in all likelihood, they are deciding on damages.

    • "(Two HYNX/MU North American executives met to DRAM discuss prices and state of affairs. While that was illegal from antitrust perspective there is no evidence that this led to price fixing conspiracy against RMBS (BTW - entire industry knows this as fact). There is simply no testimony and/or empirical data that MU/HYNIX did OR could have fixed prices to kill RMBS.)"

      Previous court case law has established that it is not illegal to meet to discuss prices and the state of affairs. It is illegal to act in unison to control prices or supply. MU never produced RDRAM and it was not proven that MU had any control over the price of RDRAM. The reason DRAM prices drop and rise is the demand curve. The DRAM market goes through cycles based on need.

      By now the jury should be past guilt if they thought MU and HYNX was guilty. They have not asked for any of the documents or testimony that relate to damages.

      XQ

      • 1 Reply to xquestor
      • As much as executives in semiconductor industry don't like memory business altogether, I think they would know that Appleton has stood up to the key question here;

        "Did MU & HYNX kill RMBS?"
        I believe industry would come up with a firm "NO" to this question.

        The facts were that nobody wanted to design another memory product (RDRAM) and be stuck paying royalties for a trivial piece of IP in an already loss making commodity market!

        In my opinion, RDRAM died because from INTEL must have realized that RDRAM had no sustainable system advantage to require its loss making memory suppliers consisting of MU, HYNIX, SAMSUNG, ELPIDA companies to invest MILLIONS in R&D and BILLIONS in FAB; for a ONE_DEBATABLE_IP_WONDER_THAT_WAS_RMBS!

        Its my opinion - Intel with almost 100% PC market dominance would not have wanted a uncritical IP be a thorn behind its back! And they were entitled to make a business judgement here!

    • IMHO, another glaring miss from RMBS case is:

      RMBS needed to show that MU and HYNX committed to certain price, performance, technology roadmaps to Intel, leading up to Intel's cancellation of RMBS partnerhip. RMBS needed to present facts of specific meetings & dates where certain Intel employees cut exclusive deals with MU and HYNX. (Keep in mind RMBS is arguing that MU and HYNX were solely responsible for RMBS loosing DRAM market! not Samsung, not Elpida..just MU & HYNX)

      These jurors will be forced to consider this point and look for direct evidence 28 times over during their deliberations !

      I'd think that ordinary people who are forced "to" think about evidence 28 times over, possibly first time in their lives, will not be able to get past this lack of evidence to most basic of contentions arising from RMBS charges! Its possible RMBS has overcharged Micron and that may come back to haunt them.

    • Don't think so, will end on a guilty or not guilty, by the way that Bloomberg article on the ITC recommendations also said this and I cut it out for everyone's enjoyment.

      It goes something like this,
      "While recommending that the patents be declared invalid, the ITC staff said it found that that the patents at issue had been infringed and shouldn’t be deemed unenforceable because of document destruction by Rambus. The staff also said that if a violation of Rambus rights is found, certain products that infringe the patents should be banned from the U.S", I really wish some one would explain this paragraph.

      • 1 Reply to roadflea2000
      • Roadflee:
        This pending $12B judgement is not about patent infringement / validity; this case is about MU & HYNX SOLELY conspiring and destroying RMBS business through illegal means. The patent case is a seperate battle field.

        The ONLY way RMBS DRAM business could have been destroyed was by charging INTEL, MU, HYNX, SAMSUNG, and ELPIDA companies together. RMBS lost the plot as they could not fight with entire group of companies that it needs for future business! I believe these companies were a minimum set of players to kill RMBS!

        As I recall semiconductor industry consensus was that RMBS IP was not so critical that industry should accept unreasonable RMBS terms & conditions on a commodity product with a history of losses. They'd preferred RMBS to be part of DRAM consortium to promote RDRAM products.

        In actuality - INTEL is the ONLY company that had something to loose by being held hostage to RMBS memory on PC business it dominated 100% !! The MU, HYNX, SAMSUNG, ELPIDAs all cross license various memory IPs to each other and are used to recklessly competing all day long!

 
RMBS
12.92-0.01(-0.08%)Sep 19 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.