Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Rambus Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 20, 2012 5:47 PM Flag

    Findings of fact

    How would HJW know what was destroyed, and if it was redundant or not?

    Rambus did not keep a record of what was destroyed, in other words you literally would need to take their word for it, and we know that their word isn't worth much.

    Also, a lot of evidence has been uncovered since HJW made his ruling, which was rejected by the CAFC.

    HJR is going to rule as she sees fit, and she saw fit to rule that Rambus acted in bad faith previously, and could easily rule along the same lines again on 1/26/12. If she does you can rest assured she will be careful to be specific about what evidence on record proves bad faith and prejudice.

    It is my understanding that HJW is now waiting for HJR to rule. If that is true, he may simply accept her ruling instead of ruling seperately.

    And why is it that Ramboids always believe the least onerous sanction means that Rambus gets away free and clear??

    I say let the punishment fit the crime, Rambus patents should be ruled unenforceable by HJR, again.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • That last footnote 2 was the wrong footnote - here's
      the right footnote:

      << Footnote 2

      <<This court does not decide whether Micron II decision should be given any preclusive effect, the correctness of Judge Whyte’s determinations on prejudice and good faith, or the propriety of any particular sanction on this record. Those questions all remain for consideration by the district court on remand.>>

      http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1299-1347.pdf >>

    • <<It is my understanding that HJW is now waiting for HJR to rule. If that is true, he may simply accept her ruling instead of ruling seperately.>>

      How can that possibly be your understanding
      when he said he's not inclined to change his
      mind when it comes to NOT granting the Delaware
      Court collateral estoppel??

      This is also from the CAFC's footnote on May 13th:

      <<Footnote 2:

      2 Despite the effort of Rambus’s adversaries to twist its meaning, the discussion of “horror
      stories” caused by “deleted emails” in Johnson’s presentation slides likewise addressed content
      creation, not document destruction. (HTX 111.006.) Johnson emphasized that “special care
      must be taken with emails” because they are “generally less formal and thoughtful than written
      correspondence,” and “deleted emails can often be retrieved by experts.” (HTX 111.005.)>>

      • 1 Reply to twobyte_bus
      • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Jan 20, 2012 10:00 PM Flag

        HJR is going to rule on this matter before HJW does, so he is waiting on her to rule. How is that not clear to you?

        When HJW said that collateral estoppel does not apply I thought he was going to try and sneak his ruling in before HJR, but then he decided to take a vacation until after she rules.

        Could it be that the new evidence which was presented to him by Hynix was enough to sway him? There is a lot of compelling evidence which has surfaced since he ruled on this originally, so this isn't so far fetched.

    • <<How would HJW know what was destroyed, and if it was redundant or not?>>

      Because Rambus satisfied that burden:

      << << As noted, which party bears the burden on the prejudice element of unclean hands depends on whether bad faith is shown. Because the Court finds that Rambus did not act in bad faith, Hynix properly bears the burden. But even if Rambus bore the burden to disprove prejudice, it met that burden here. There are two fundamental problems with Hynix’s theories of prejudice. The first is structural; the legal standards governing Hynix’s defenses make the universe of internal Rambus documents that are relevant exceedingly narrow. This is true of Hynix’s patent-related defenses, its abandoned inequitable conduct defense, and its JEDEC related defenses. Second, although Hynix has made a showing that Rambus destroyed some relevant documents, the evidence demonstrated that Rambus has produced to Hynix a large volume of relevant and material
      documents.>>

 
RMBS
13.91+0.01(+0.07%)Aug 26 4:00 PMEDT