Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 10:19 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 19, 2012 6:41 AM Flag

    Findings of fact

    http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&pt=msg&mn=658824

    When RDRAM failed, Rambus decided to sue memory manufactuers for alleged patent infringement, but very carefully plotted when and where to do so.

    Prior to and during the early stages of their planned litigation, they held several shred days where employees were specifically told to keep only records which proved ownership of patents. Email backups, hard drives, and literally tons of paper documents were destroyed, and to make light of the situation Rambus even gave one of these events a very cute name, they called it a "shred party". Who doesn't like parties?

    The very fact that they had a legal right to these patents was in question, they attended JEDEC meetings where standards were set and then re-filed patents in order to broaden their scope to include new memory architectures which were discussed in these meetings.

    Rambus signed an agreement which clearly stated that they would not attempt to patent the very same technology which they ensured would be included into the SDRAM standard.

    Every bit of evidence which could have proven the defendants argument that Rambus acted improperly at JEDEC was destroyed. Not only that, but they had outside firms destroy draft versions of patent filings.

    There is evidence of these findings of fact, read the appeals court ruling here:
    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020110513131.xml

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 24, 2012 10:38 AM Flag

      You were so very wrong about the AT case, what makes you think you are right this time??

      Rambus broke the law, and HJR busted them, you are just upset that they got caught and believe they deserve to be let off the hook because you have a lot of money invested in RMBS.

      You are in for a rude awakening, again.. too bad you learned nothing from your past mistakes.

    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 23, 2012 11:07 PM Flag

      Idiot you have yet to post anything of value to add to the discussion.

      Rambus is a company run by liars and thieves, and you are a hopeless loser who is going to regret not paying attention to my warnings.

      LOSER!!!!!! Hahahaha.

    • your reading comprehension problem is well known.

    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 23, 2012 1:54 PM Flag

      Hynix didn't get to use the evidence because HJW ruled prior to it being uncovered.

      I have provided links to the opinion of the CAFC who on appeal sided with HJR, you should read this before you try to discredit me you ignorant fool.

    • If the evidence was so "compelling", why
      didn't Hynix use it in the first place?

      -------------------------------

      Good point about Hynix

    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 21, 2012 10:35 AM Flag

      You assume the burden of proof is on Micron. Once again, you are wrong in your assumptions. I will refer you to the opinion of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed Judge Robinson's ruling of spoliation and vacated Judge Whyte's.

      http://www.patentlyo.com/files/09-1263.pdf

      ii. Prejudice
      Prejudice to the opposing party requires a showing that the spoliation “materially affect[s] the substantial
      MICRON TECHNOLOGY v. RAMBUS 28
      rights of the adverse party and is prejudicial to the pres-entation of his case.” Wilson v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 561 F.2d 494, 504 (4th Cir. 1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). In satisfying that burden, a party must only “come forward with plausible, concrete suggestions as to what [the destroyed] evidence might have been.” Schmid, 13 F.3d at 80 (emphases added). See also Leon, 464 F.3d at 960 (“[B]ecause any number of the 2,200 files could have been relevant to IDX’s claims or defenses, although it is impossible to identify which files and how they might have been used. . . . the district court did not clearly err in its finding of prejudice.”). If it is shown that the spoliator acted in bad faith, the spoliator bears the “heavy burden” to show a lack of prejudice to the opposing party because “[a] party who is guilty of . . . intentionally shredding documents . . . should not easily be able to excuse the misconduct by claiming that the vanished documents were of minimal import.” Anderson v. Cry-ovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 925 (1st Cir. 1988). See also Coates v. Johnson & Johnson, 756 F.2d 524, 551 (7th Cir. 1985) (“The prevailing rule is that bad faith destruction of a document relevant to proof of an issue at trial gives rise to a strong inference that production of the document would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction.”).
      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
      29 MICRON TECHNOLOGY v. RAMBUS
      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.

    • You're missing some important points.

      First, the CAFC said that redundant document
      destruction was NOT prejudicial. Moreover,
      the San Jose federal judge (Ronald M. Whyte)
      said that the documents that Rambus destroyed
      (and almost all companies destroy documents
      consistent with their document retention policies)
      were indeed redundant. Check here:


      Here's the CAFC on May 13, 2011:

      <<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.>>

      Judge Whyte has already said this in his original ruling:

      << As noted, which party bears the burden on the prejudice element of unclean
      hands depends on whether bad faith is shown. Because the Court finds that Rambus did not act in
      bad faith, Hynix properly bears the burden. But even if Rambus bore the burden to disprove
      prejudice, it met that burden here. There are two fundamental problems with Hynix’s theories of
      prejudice. The first is structural; the legal standards governing Hynix’s defenses make the
      universe of internal Rambus documents that are relevant exceedingly narrow. This is true of
      Hynix’s patent-related defenses, its abandoned inequitable conduct defense, and its JEDECrelated
      defenses. Second, although Hynix has made a showing that Rambus destroyed some relevant documents,
      the evidence demonstrated that Rambus has produced to Hynix a large volume of relevant and material
      documents. According to the testimony of Hynix’s counsel, Rambus has produced approximately
      1.2 million pages of documents responsive to Hynix’s discovery requests in this case. As to each
      category of documents for which Hynix claimed material prejudice, Rambus established that
      adequate similar and material documents or classes of documents were not destroyed. Hynix’s
      substantial rights were not affected.>>

      http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/060105notfilingrulingrelated.pdf

      P.S.

      Prejudice is the second prong that's necessary for the "least onerous sanction."

      • 1 Reply to twobyte_bus
      • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 20, 2012 5:47 PM Flag

        How would HJW know what was destroyed, and if it was redundant or not?

        Rambus did not keep a record of what was destroyed, in other words you literally would need to take their word for it, and we know that their word isn't worth much.

        Also, a lot of evidence has been uncovered since HJW made his ruling, which was rejected by the CAFC.

        HJR is going to rule as she sees fit, and she saw fit to rule that Rambus acted in bad faith previously, and could easily rule along the same lines again on 1/26/12. If she does you can rest assured she will be careful to be specific about what evidence on record proves bad faith and prejudice.

        It is my understanding that HJW is now waiting for HJR to rule. If that is true, he may simply accept her ruling instead of ruling seperately.

        And why is it that Ramboids always believe the least onerous sanction means that Rambus gets away free and clear??

        I say let the punishment fit the crime, Rambus patents should be ruled unenforceable by HJR, again.

    • We don't care for your FUD facts or looking back. hardly interesting at this ponit.

      you are nothing but a MU loser.

 
RMBS
12.23-0.50(-3.93%)Jul 25 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.