Recent

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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • mystk7 mystk7 Jan 21, 2012 11:02 AM Flag

    Findings of fact

    greg idiot, you already missed the bottom !!!

    As for RMBS and the misleading FUD 'facts' of your :

    <<On the other hand, because it is not clear
    what documents were destroyed, it may be, as
    Rambus argues, that all the documents destroyed
    were either redundant or irrelevant to the trial.>>

    not to mention that any bad news already well into the price and actually RMBS is way undervalued.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 23, 2012 11:44 PM Flag

      Idiot, you cherry picked a sentence and expect to mislead people by taking it out of context. When you read the whole paragraph, it becomes evident that your cherry picked sentence was not meant to prove Rambus's innocence.

      I added white space before and after the sentence so that you can see where it fits in context as written by the CAFC.... MORON!

      << It is undisputed that Rambus destroyed between 9,000 and 18,000 pounds of documents in 300 boxes. The district court concluded that the destroyed documents were relevant to at least the following defenses, which would have been “illuminated by evidence of a non-public nature, e.g. by internal Rambus documents”: “unenforce-ability due to patent misuse and violation of the antitrust and unfair competition laws (based in part on Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC), as well as inequitable conduct.” Decision, 255 F.R.D. at 150-51. Documents relating to Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC, together with documents reflecting Rambus’s instructions to its patent prosecution counsel concerning its conduct at JEDEC, could have helped resolve Micron’s claims relating to patent misuse, antitrust violations, and unfair competition. Documents reflecting Rambus’s knowledge of relevant prior art references could have helped resolve Micron’s inequitable conduct claims.

      On the other hand, because it is not clear what documents were destroyed, it may be, as Rambus argues, that all the documents destroyed were either redundant or irrelevant to the trial.


      The proper resolution of this issue turns largely on whether Rambus has the burden to show lack of prejudice or Micron has the burden to show prejudice. As discussed above, this turns on whether the district court, on re-mand, concludes that Rambus was a bad faith spoliator. The question of prejudice is therefore also remanded. >>

 
RMBS
14.62+0.22(+1.53%)1:12 PMEDT