"[T]here is substantial evidence documents were destroyed from which a juror could
conclude they willfully destroyed in connection with Rambus someday having to
prosecute or defend, most likely prosecute an anticompetitive lawsuit of some kind,
and that a jury could conclude that the documents related to that."
Hon. R. Kramer, S.F Superior court.
Rambus is going to find difficulty in using the superior court to provide it with the monopoly rents that weren't available to it from its "patent" causes of action. Both are part and parcel of its failed litigation strategy:
“Collect royalties on all DRAM
and controllers forever.”
------Good luck with that, idiots------
“5 Year Objectives: All/90%+
DRAMs/controllers pay us royalties . . . – We are ratcheting up royalty rates over time to the
value of the IP”
------Where is Geoff Tate? He was such a "smart" guy.------
"Achieve >30% share of DDR by 2003"
------Who cared about RDRAM when the "leader" thought that co-opting JEDEC standards would be more profitable?-------
------Why would Rambus continue to develop anything when they could just make up patent claims on their 1990 "inventions" that they'd tell the courts any IC must be infringing?------
In actuality RMBS with the help of INTC wanted to own 100% of the DRAM chip market. RMBS wanted to collect royalties on every chip produced. Their intentions were and are anti-competitive and if compared to the actions of MSFT would also be considered violations of anti-trust laws. INTC at the same time was engaging in activities that were adversely affecting AMD and were found as anti-competitive and in violation of anti-trust laws. RMBS had to destroy the documents that would have proven this collusion and cartel type actions.
Reviewed your links. Great post
It appears RMBS wanted 100% of the market and then they would start raising the royalty fees to %5. It appears that RMBS was trying to force the adoption of RDRAM on all the chip producers. What a scam.
Should be getting pretty nervous right about now. Some may have already committed perjury and others may find themselves in the position of having to testify. Will they tell the truth about the true goal of RMBS? That is the goal of total market domination and their plans for price fixing their royalty fees.
Someone from RMBS will come forward with documents and testimony. They will consider the cost of perjury and jail time versus doing the right thing and freedom. Maybe that person has already come forward. If I was a peon working for RMBS, I would sure be saving documents to CMA. A leaking pot never holds water long.
Well, we already know that some of the cartel price fixers (which included Micron, but they got an amnesty, because they betrayed their "friends") had to go to jail after the DOJ investigation.
Also motion to non-suit filed by MU and jury trial continued to Aug 2.
JUL-29-2011 TRIAL MOTION IN DEPT. 611, EVIDENTIARY HEARING RE: DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS. CONTINUED FROM JUL-29-2011 TO TRIAL DEPT. MOTION AT AUG-02-2011, 3:00 PM IN DEPT. 611 FOR FURTHER HEARING. PROCEEDINGS REPORTED BY JOE VICKSTEIN, CSR #4780.
JUL-29-2011 NTC AND MOTION FOR NONSUIT; MEMO OF P AND A; PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION FILED BY DEFENDANT MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
JUL-29-2011 NTC AND MOTION FOR NONSUIT MEMO OF P AND A (SEALED DOCUMENT) FILED BY DEFENDANT MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC. 40.00
JUL-29-2011 NOTICE OF LODGING OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MICRON'S NTC OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR NONSUIT FILED BY DEFENDANT MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
JUL-29-2011 MINUTES FOR JUL-29-2011 10:00 AM
Wouldn't it be ironic if RMBS found that they were the center of an anti-trust lawsuit, as the defendant by JDEC members; for trying to monopolize and price fixing the DRAM market with RDRAM.
And wouldn't it be funny if RMBS had to pay Samsung and others, the 900 million +, back to the companies that they extracted the payments from.
The evidence is there in their own e-mails!
Sorry Xq, you must have gotten something completely wrong! But everybody is free to interpret the available information in the way that suits him best. But I am not sure that is the best for everyone.
You might want to review the unanimous jury decision in Hynix v. Rambus. That jury voted 100% pro-Rambus, and 100% contrary to the claims you are making. The jury said that Rambus obtained its monompoly legally, that the patents were infriged, and that Rambus engaged in no malconduct while at JEDEC.
http:// (cut & paste onto first link)
RMBS may drop 20% on open Monday with large multiple sell orders in place.