Judge Robinson will be sanctioning Rambus in her ruling on 1/26 for spoliation of evidence.
Please read for yourself, don't let the RMBS pumper cheerleader squad mislead you as they have misled so many others in the past.
The first PDF linked on this page is the CAFC opinion for Micron v. Rambus:
The higher court remanded the decision only for clarification regarding what evidence on record should be used in determining bad faith spoliation. If Rambus is found by HJR to have plotted to destroy evidence in order to cripple the defense of those they sued, as the evidence discovered by piercing the attorney-client priveledge proves, then this is will in fact justify her original ruling that Rambus's patents are unenforceable.
Honorable Judge Whyte will be required to re-consider collateral estoppel after she has ruled.
Here is the link to Ken Nissly's brief to HJW, where he points out that HJW has been instructed to follow HJR's lead.
Quote: "Those considerations also provide compelling reasons for the Delaware remand to proceed first. The Federal Circuit “affirmed the [Delaware] district court’s determination of spoliation” ( Hynix II , 645 F.2d at 1344) and vacated this Court’s “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in connection with the rejection of Hynix’s motion to dismiss on the basis of spoliation” due to“legal error” (id. at 1347). As Judge Robinson has noted, “in large measure, [her] work is done…” See Ex. C. to Hynix’s 9/30/11 brief at 9:19. This Court, by contrast, must consider the spoliation issues anew under the framework set forth in Micron II. In addition, the Federal Circuit left open the issue of collateral estoppel (see Hynix II, 645 F.2d at 1347 n.2), making it appropriate for this court to await the Delaware decision in order to give full consideration to the role of collateral estoppel in advancing the goal of consistent outcomes."
This POS is sure to sell off today, nobody wants to be all in when HJR rules from the bench tomorrow, way too risky.
I will be adding to my short position this morning, the afternoon is sure to be chaos.
I tried to add to my short position after closing out my ARMH short (temporarily), and I could not.
There are exact 0 shares available for shorting through Fidelity.com, hahaha. That means the shorts have piled on folks, get ready for a real bumpy ride tomorrow.
Just like the idiot pumpers from 2011 who like lemmings all followed UTPT off a cliff, you too will find yourself losing it all. On the day that you lose the farm betting on RMBS, I want you to remember that you were warned to stay away.
I warned those guys too, I got more than a few thank you messages from people who listened to me and saved themselves a fortune.
Now, come up with some thoughtful rebuttles or shut up, your useless commentary adds absolutely no value to the debate.
Overruled! LOL, you need a history lesson freakazoid. HJR's ruling was upheld by the higher court (CAFC) and HJW's was vacated.
The CAFC stated that evidence on record could prove bad faith and prejudice, but that this is not their job to interpret the evidence, and so they sent the case back for her to justify her ruling.
She will not be overruled, you are in for a rude awakening just like the other idiot pumpers on this board, and the RMBS IV forum.
A Meaningless Remand?
Although affirming the Micron district court's conclusion that litigation was reasonably foreseeable, the majority nevertheless vacated the district court's sanction determination. This move is unlikely to produce in any meaningful change. The majority's basis for the remand was that the Micron district court opinion failed to provide sufficient detail or analysis in support of its conclusion that Rambus acted in bad faith, that Micron suffered prejudice, or that judgment in Micron's favor was the appropriate sanction to impose. Given Judge Robinson's prior opinion, however, the inevitable result will be a more detailed opinion that reaches precisely the same conclusion on these issues.
This is your wake up call, forget about the wishful thinking that RMBS will be offered some kind of a deal.
Read the above post, a direct quote from the linked article!!!
HJR's ruling on 1/26/12 has already been determined. She already ruled once, she is not being asked to rule again on remand, her ruling was upheld. She will only need to JUSTIFY THE RULING.
The CAFC majority actually stated in the opinion (linked in my first post in this thread):
While these items may lead to a determination of bad faith, the district court did not make clear the basis on which it reached that conclusion.
“It is not our task to make factual findings,” Golden Hour Data Sys., Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., 614 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and we will leave it to the district
27 MICRON TECHNOLOGY v. RAMBUS
court’s sound discretion on remand to analyze these, and any other, relevant facts as they apply to the determina-tion of bad faith, see Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 873 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (“[T]he district court will have a better grasp of what is acceptable trial-level practice among litigating members of the bar than will appellate judges.”).
We note that the district court applied a “knew or should have known” standard in its bad faith determina-tion. On remand, the district court should limit its bad faith analysis to the proper inquiry: whether Rambus “intended to impair the ability of the potential defendant to defend itself,” Schmid, 13 F.3d at 80, without regard to whether Rambus “should have known” of the propriety of its document destruction.
Litigations are fought and won with information. If the district court finds facts to conclude that Rambus’s goal in implementing its document retention policy was to obtain an advantage in litigation through the control of information and evidence, it would be justified in making a finding of bad faith.
The CAFC opinion on Micron II is 100% relevant, you ignorant pup.
HJR will rule on 1/26/12 on remand from this case...
My comprehension level is just fine, yours is questionable.
Judge Whyte also said spoliation didn't happen too, it's just too bad for Ramboids in fantasy land because we all know how that ruling was vacated!
Rambus acted in bad faith, HJR already ruled along these lines. The CAFC was clear that bad faith can be determined based on evidence, and that HJR should be precise about what evidence proves this.
You are in for a very rude awakening 16 bit bus, again.
I've posted plenty of content, i even quoted the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The very fact that you are saying my posts are content free is obviously untrue.
You are out of your league here buddy, and betting against the odds, and bashing the guy trying to help you.
I think you meant "baked in", regardless you are WRONG.. hahaha.
There are absolutely 0 news agencies reporting on this, and really thre aren't any analysts who cover RMBS anymore since they lost the AT case.
The only place investors would even hear about this case is from this forum, or the RMBS forum at investor village.
Nothing is baked in, except last quarters earnings which were pre-announced.