RMBS sent employees to JDEC to find out what standards the members were going to adopt. RMBS dropped out of JDEC once they had the information needed to file patents on the JDEC open use standards. They then informed and demanded royalties on those patents from memory makers. When memory makers declined to pay the unreasonable royalties; RMBS decided to sue. RMBS realized that they had documents that were adverse to their claims and proceeded to destroy 18000 pounds of possible evidence.
The RMBS greed and deception culture must be ended. Management has convinced many of their shareholder that they are entitled to large sums of money, even though their claims are based on unethical actions.
It is a shame that many have lost a lot of money.
RMBS management is the problem. If they had operated in an honest manner, none of us would have a problem.
This story is not over as long as RMBS wants to sue everyone and management remains.
If RMBS had won many of you would be rubbing it in and gloating. The pain of a loss can be for some hard to get over. The ball is in your hands to change how RMBS does business.
RMBS says we have a contract: but, we can not disclose the terms. I wonder if they will shred this contract if they are required to produce it?
And, the RAMBUTTS are deceived again into believing the tooth fairy.
OH; THE PAIN OF SELLING STOCK AT A DISCOUNT!
AND; HOW ABOUT THE BUY LOW AND SELL HIGH DUMP ON THE SAME DAY$
This guy must think that only heathens and the ungodly invest in MU. He does not understand why GOD is punishing them with this unjust verdict.
Go figure. GOD puts opportunities out there for everyone. We get to chose.
Quote from prior article link.
"(Digging a little deeper, findings of spoliation such as in Rambus may be rare in the future. In Rambus, a great deal of the evidence about Rambus’ “shred days” and its litigation strategy was available to Hynix and Micron because all three district judges pierced the attorney-client privilege based on the basis of the crime-fraud exception. Without that evidence, it would have been difficult to satisfy the “reasonably foreseeable litigation” standard. Such evidence may not be available in other cases, though the Federal Circuit’s Micron decision provides litigants with a roadmap for establishing a prima facie case of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.)"
Take a real close look at their last financial statement.
GOODWILL -- Created when a company buys another company for more then it is worth and is carried on the books as GW. RMBS GW is 16.55% of total assets. And GW is 71.58% of cash and cash equivalents.
So what does that make this company worth?
A whole lot less then you think!
And on top of that they bought another company with money that they did not have creating even more GW. Plus they bought back stock from Samsung for a cool $100 Million and the stock has lost considerable value.
RMBS is headed in the wrong direction.
Any dispute regarding our intellectual property may require us to indemnify certain licensees, the cost of which could severely hamper our business operations and financial condition.
In any potential dispute involving our patents or other intellectual property, our licensees could also become the target of litigation. While we generally do not indemnify our licensees, some of our license agreements provide limited indemnities, and some require us to provide technical support and information to a licensee that is involved in litigation involving use of our technology. In addition, we may agree to indemnify others in the future. Any of these indemnification and support obligations could result in substantial expenses. In addition to the time and expense required for us to indemnify or supply such support to our licensees, a licensee’s development, marketing and sales of licensed semiconductors, lighting and display, mobile communications and data security technologies could be severely disrupted or shut down as a result of litigation, which in turn could severely hamper our business operations and financial condition as a result of lower or no royalty payments.
It means that if any of their patents are found to be invalid that they may have to pay back the license fees paid to them.
Even from day 1, when the jury started deliberations; if you took a vote and said that would be the verdict, it would have been a mistrial.
Judge MB will not overrule his own decisions as it would make him look foolish. I seriously doubt that the CAFC will grant a new trial as there are no issues that would rise to the level requiring a new trial.
Even if there was an issue with one of the jurors. That juror could have voted for RMBS or MU. The jurors do not have to disclose how they voted.
If a new trial was granted RMBS would have to bear the cost. They may very well have to pay MU and Hynix legal fees as is.
Thanks for the link. I think everyone who thinks of investing in this company should read this.
The transcript makes it obvious why RMBS lost. Even a home crowd jury, where Horowitz is a "beloved Stanford Professor" saw that there was nothing to the allegations.
I agree with you, they need to change management to start rehabilitating their image. No one in the industry likes or respect RMBS (just read the comments about the case in EE Times)