Rambus win real big again.==================Steinberg shyster lie real calm for Rambus, calm mean his lies are really truth. He say he not work for Rambus when he work for rambus and hide it from Samsung, his real employer. He say no shred day happen, then maybe one then maybe more. He say he not know what he mean by make shred day work better next time. He say nobody told to look for "things to keep" except when his "memory" get "refreshed". Very calm liar, just like other Rambus liars. This why Rambus win real big. No compunctions about lying at all, real good for lawsuit business.=======Rambus win very big from this pack of lies, maybe more billions when cartel and Steve Jobs get sent to Hell by jury for liar stealers.
LIAR cartel expert get slaughters by EKoviz. Jury bored except when God send LIAR cartel expert to Hell, then jury smile and take notes. EKoviz win big billions for Rambus, just like he did for SCO.===================
Where my duck?
Dear UTPT. Thank you so much for clearing that up. I believe we don't need to buy the transcript now.
You provide such a great service for pumpers and shorts to maximize profits! We have enough money from Rambus Corp to pay for your lunch for the next 2 weeks as a token of our gratitude.
Please be sure to continue comparing Micron execs to Hitler as this was a big hit with the board.
There is a summary on Investor Village. They take a pro Rampus stance but I thought the expert witness transcript poked a ton of holes in Rampus's damage claim. They are trying to claim all DDR sales would have been RDRAM over a 10 year period which is an eternity in tech. Since IBM, HP and others announced support for JEDEC DDR back in 1998 it is pure fantasy to believe everything afterward would be RDRAM given the PC industry evolves around open standards, i.e. PCI, USB, SATA and would not want to be locked into a proprietary standard controlled by a would-be monopolist.
One note on damages expert testimony
Having written valuation and damages reports for litigation prior to becoming an equity analyst, let me pass on one observation.
Valuations and damages are generally extremely difficult to "get right" no matter how much time or money goes into the report. As such, any expert's report is going to generally be relatively easy to attack and hard to defend. The jury is going to start with the assumption that the damages is somewhere in the middle.
I see nothing strange or unusually with today's testimony. Both sides attacked each other's damages report as weak...and both were generally right. Rambus's report is weak because it depends on the "but for" world and thus is easy to attack particulars using actual history (ignoring the fact that "history" would have been different). The cartel's report is easy to attack because "its version of but for history" is just as hard to justify.
The response of the jury (ie where in the spectrum a jury is inclined to start considering damages) is likely to key off of how the particular expert responded to the questioning by the other party. Given the lattitude of the "but for" world Tucker based his damages on, I'm reasonably certain that UTPT's reporting (though biased) was generally accurate in that Tucker was generally relaxed in responding to the cartel. I'd be somewhat surprised however if the cartel's expert were as evasive as UTPT makes out in his report. (Evading some questions is likely for both....its a matter of degree as to if evading questions LOOKS that way to a jury.)
I see both sides damages reports as highly unrealistic...but the point of opposing reports is to set the boundries. Here the cartel is essentially saying zero and Rambus is essentially saying "slightly less than infinite but enough to own both companies outright". This is one (of several) reasons I hated doing this type of litigation work....the "value" you determined was based entirely on what your client wanted...not what was "fair" (as required by most tax work).
Once the jury determines a general range (20%, 25%, 40%, 50%, 60%, ,75%, 80%) within the spectrum, they will adjust it up or down relative to the degree of guilt and the type of conduct (in this case I expect this will push the award up given the egregious behavior displayed) and only then will they typically parse out damages to reach a figure they have already determined.
Too bad Starduster is not there, it's nearly impossible to ascertain the truth by reading UTPT's nonsensical garbage.
I did notice however that the judge seemed to overrule a lot of RMBS objections during questioning of the damage experts. I think reading the transcript from today would be very helpful.