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."
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.
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.
<<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.>>
Why didn't you post what Judge Whyte said in
the December 16th hearing?
OKAY. ONE COMMENT I WILL
MAKE BEFORE YOU START IS THAT I INDICATED BEFORE
THAT I DID NOT THINK COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL SHOULD BE
APPLIED. I STILL FEEL THAT MY ANALYSIS OF THAT
ISSUE IN THE PRIOR ORDER WAS CORRECT IN THE SENSE
OF A CORRECT STATEMENT OF THE LAW.
WHAT I'M LESS COMFORTABLE WITH IS WHETHER
OR NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED SUCH THAT, AS
A MATTER OF DISCRETION, THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER
APPLYING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT SO YOU
COULD EACH ADDRESS IT IF YOU WANTED TO.
And here he is towards the end:
YEAH. THE DISTINCTION I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WHEN I
MADE MY INTRODUCTORY COMMENT WAS THAT I WAS MORE
INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR
NOT, AS A DISCRETIONARY MATTER, ASSUMING THAT IT IS, THAT
I SHOULD APPLY IT NOW BECAUSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT
THAN WHEN I SAID BEFORE I WOULD NOT APPLY IT, NOT THAT I WAS
REALLY CHANGING MY VIEW AS TO WHETHER OR NOT NON-MUTUAL
DEFENSIVE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL WAS MANDATORY.
Not necessary to post, the fact is that he is waiting for HJR to rule first. He has been instructed to follow the ruling as outlined in Micron II.
You are really bad at this 16 bit bus.. Actions speak louder than words, and his recent actions make those old words sound pretty weak.
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.
How is what I posted irrelevant? Come up with an intelligent response or else refer to my previous statement about content free personal attacks that add no value to the debate.
And you provide absolutely nothing of value in your responses, this one is no different since once again you provide no proof or any reasoning.
Simply stating that I am wrong doesn't make it so! It certainly doesn't make for a very persuasive argument.
Did all of the people who listened to me during the AT trial who avoided this POS feel like they were misled when the stock fell from 18 in November?