Paul Fahey was in charge of overseeing the development of dynamic random access memory or DRAM by Rambus when he was the project manager for Intel in 1999. He said that the engineers employed by Rambus were not competent enough and didn’t work hard either. Testimonies by few current and former employees of Intel including Swope, Fahey and others will undermine the company’s lawsuit claiming Micron and Hynix’s role in driving out Rambus’s DRAM chips called RDRAM from the market. Intel stopped working on the RDRAM chips as early as 2003 when the memory bottleneck threatened to hinder the growth of Santa Carla, California based Intel Corp.
Read more: http://www.beaconequity.com/smw/11953/Intel-Blames-Rambus-for-the-Mess-that-It-is-Currently-in#ixzz1ZkXOJ09J
Does "dad" know what happened when /RAS went into its inactive state in a Fast Page Mode DRAM?
What was the proposed data transfer rate for the Scalable Coherent Interface in 1997 and what was its proposed clock frequency?
You've probably not been following closely enough.
Then in that critical period of the summer of 2000 when the design decision was being made by important OEMs and when Intel was trying to ramp RDRAM, it was in the marketplace. Mr. Fahey took the stand, about the fact that RDRAM, when it got into the marketplace, was, the technical was clean.
He was asked, “Do you agree that time only moves in one direction, it moves forward? So once the product got to market and once it was clean and the bugs were out and the single-bit error had been dealt with, that was past?”
And he said: "Yes, it was clean. And we have a really high standard at Intel and we don’t put stuff out unless it works.”
The importance of this is to help the jury put in context all of the evidence that the Defense focused on for the period 1997 to November of 1999.
RDRAM went into the marketplace and there was no DDR Intel-compatible chipset to compete against it. But then DDR took over. That’s because of the Defendants’ conduct.
Mr. Tabrizi wrote to Mr. Sang Park, his boss, in Exhibit 762 and outlined how he wanted to go back to RDRAM killing. He said: “It’s important. We almost had this thing killed.”
Mr. Tabrizi wrote to his boss in the summer of 2000 just a day or two after he coordinated with Micron and Infineon to reject the Dell price projections, and he said: “I believe we need to go back to our old strategy.”
Then he wrote: “So why should we promote RDRAM and help Rambus Company to collect royalties and then sue us for making SDRAM? We should close their income revenue and get them out of this royalty-collection business.”
This is precisely the kind of despicable conduct, not just we’re-fighting-hard-in-the-marketplace conduct, that should cause the jury to want to impose punitive damages.
Fahey turned out to be an excellent witness - for Rambus. He ended up acknowledging Pat Gelsinger's reign of supremacy at Intel, who chose Rambus above all other technologies for a ten year run, as Niko posts from IV. Fahey also acknowledged that RDRAM worked great after the bugs were worked out, which is always the case for new/emerging technologies.
It's very important to acknowledge the cross-examination, not just the direct. Direct is a script worked out in advance by the attorney and the witness, and can come accross as a "sales job" to the jury. Cross examination is somewhat on the fly, and causes the witness to address aspects that are not necessarily supportive of their testimony. A jury will not give credibility to a witness whose testimony does not hold up under cross examination. Fahey's testimony did not stand up to cross exam. It also illuminated Intel's intended 10-year lifespan for RDRAM. Big mistake by the Cartel
So you are saying that the jurors were read the testimony that Fahey supposedly gave in 2000, and not the one relevant to this case which he gave recently? This defies logic and reason, but considering all of the lies, half truths, and myths you believe, I guess this is a pretty easy pill for you to swallow kid.
I wonder if this means they are looking to limit damages, or if they are still on question #1.. either way, probably not good news for Rambutt that they are asking to see his testimony again.