Technology StocksRambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Don Green who wrote (93468)11/18/2011 12:57:20 AM
From: hdl
   of 93602
1.a.) FTC Initial Decision (a definitive document about Rambus history)

1.b.) FTC Chief Administrative Law Judge (retired) Stephen J. McGuire visits Investors Village

1.c.) US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Appeal (setting aside the erroneous FTC Verdict against Rambus)

2) Excellent Expose' on Micron's Price Fixing by an ABC affiliate in Boise (this is Micron's own hometown TV station telling the story)

3) Bloomberg article on DRAM Price Fixing

4) Micron Amnesty Agreement (Did they meet the published DOJ criteria listed for amnesty?)

5) Hung Jury in DOJ attempted prosecution of Gary Swanson of Hynix, Juror Foreperson Phillis McCaughey says “Mike Sadler, we all felt was a lying sack of shit,” and the “ringleader” of a conspiracy to fix prices where Micron cut an amnesty deal with the DOJ.

6) Boise TV Station article on Micron Price Fixing

7.a.) Samsung USDOJ Plea Agreement (clearly spells out price fixing of RDRAM, see 4.d. of document)

7.b.) Infineon Sentencing Memorandum (clearly spells out RDRAM, see page 3 line 3)

7.c.) Elpida US DOJ Plea Agreement (clearly spells out price fixing of RDRAM, see paragraph 1)

7.d.) Hynix Plea Agreement (never made production quantities of RDRAM, but did fix prices on DRAM and boycott RDRAM)

8) US States Attorney General Complaint against the DRAM Cartel (pages 10-21 are notable)

9) The story of Rambus (thanks Arno…for creating Rambus.Org)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: hdl who wrote (93469)11/18/2011 2:27:30 PM
From: Don Green
   of 93602
Thanks for the links I cause some college legal professor can use them for references for a book or a course next year.

Rambus Loses Long-Running 4 Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Micron and Hynix
Posted by Sheila Ring on November 18, 2011 10:14 AM

Rambus lost a $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against Micron Technology and Hynix Semiconductor on Wednesday.

Rambus lost a long-running $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against Micron Technology and Hynix Semiconductor on Wednesday.

A jury ruled against Rambus in a case against memory makers Micron and Hynix, with retiree Jim Rockwell losing 80 percent of his savings, reports Reuters.

In the case, which began in 2004, the San Francisco County Superior Court jury found that neither Micron or Hynix conspired to fix the price of memory chips.

It also found that the memory makers had not conspired with other manufacturers like Intel and Samsung to prevent Rambus from gaining traction in the market.

Following more than eight weeks of deliberation, the jury’s vote was nine to three, and Rambus’ stock lost about 60 percent of its value after the verdict was announced.

Rambus claimed in a statement, “Upon succeeding in eliminating RDRAM as a competitor in the main memory market, the defendants raised the prices of DDR by as much as 500 percent,” Reuters reports.

Micron says it presented evidence showing that Rambus’ memory products weren’t adopted by the broader memory market.

They attributed this to higher manufacturing costs, design issues, and fundamental obstacles posed by Rambus’ business practices, rather than any conspiracy on the part of Rambus’ rivals.

Rambus had been expecting a positive outcome from its case against Micron, in part because, under California law, jury findings of antitrust violations are automatically tripled. Instead, Micron and Hynix have been cleared of all charges, Business Week reports.

“We do not agree with several rulings that affected how this case was presented to the jury and we are reviewing our options for appeal,” said Rambus president and CEO Harold Hughes.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Brasco One who wrote (93443)11/18/2011 6:00:43 PM
From: Johnny Canuck
   of 93602
I don`t think there is a hurry to get back in right now. I think the next patent infringement suit is months off and the stock will trade with the direction of the overall market for now, which is very volatile.

It usually takes a while for a stock to settle down and find a new base once it has such a dramatic sell off. It is essentially now a damaged story stock. It will take time to develop the next chapter in the story.

Keep in mind this series of legal cases have been going on for a decade and unlike other patent infringement cases there have not been the clear series of wins that would force the plaintiffs to settle.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: hdl11/18/2011 11:40:58 PM
   of 93602
the jury was 7 to 5 for rmbs for a month and ended 9 to 3 for the price fixers.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: hdl who wrote (93472)11/19/2011 1:36:08 PM
From: Don Green
   of 93602
Rambus jury shifted views as deliberations wore on
Fri, Nov 18 2011
By Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When he walked into the jury room to start deliberating in Rambus Inc's $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against two rivals, one juror felt confident that the small microchip designer should prevail.

But after weeks of discussion, he and several others were slowly swayed to the other side. When the last anonymous vote was taken on Wednesday morning, the jury dealt Rambus a stunning blow, deciding the company did not prove Micron Technology Inc and Hynix Semiconductor Inc colluded to fix memory-chip prices and discourage adoption of its technology.

"We didn't see the smoking gun," said the juror, speaking by telephone to Reuters after the verdict. The juror added that he was the first pro-Rambus member to defect and was "very comfortable" with the outcome.

Attempts to reach other jurors were not successful. The panel included people with a range of backgrounds, including a retired medical secretary and a software company employee who owns his own patent.

After the verdict, Rambus said it was analyzing its options for appeal. A Micron attorney said the outcome sent a message to other companies trying to win in the courts instead of the market, while a Hynix lawyer said it banished claims of a price-fixing conspiracy.

Rambus lost over $1.2 billion, or 61 percent, of its market value on Wednesday after the verdict was read in a California state courtroom in San Francisco. The stock has bounced back slightly since then, but it still traded Friday at roughly half its pre-verdict level.

Investors had bid up Rambus' share price based on years of aggressive, and often successful, litigation.

The Sunnyvale, California, company has attracted a loyal following of small investors who see it as a memory-chip David battling Goliaths. Many investors contribute to a vigorous online message board where they discuss Rambus and ongoing cases; some showed up in court to watch the recent trial.


The juror who spoke to Reuters did not want his name revealed, citing angry online comments about the jury after the verdict. "This jury are a bunch lazy, morons, that took advantage of the system!" one commenter wrote.

"I just don't see how this jury was not bought off," wrote another.

The juror dismissed the comments, saying the panel tried to be comprehensive and fair.

"I thought about it, thought seriously about the case, reviewed my own oath, and really had to come to terms with the fact that there was no evidence," he said.

Rambus was founded by two professors in 1990. It has long tried to generate revenue by licensing its intellectual property to other companies rather than making chips itself, and has sued technology heavyweights for infringing its stable of patents.

The verdict surprised many Rambus investors, perhaps in part because the company had settled antitrust and IP claims against Samsung Electronics in 2010 for $900 million.

That may have led Rambus to believe its strategic position was better than it actually was, said James Hopenfeld, an IP attorney who was not involved in the case.

"You can imagine Rambus is thinking, 'Gosh we're big in our britches, we've got $900 million from Samsung,'" said Hopenfeld, who has followed Rambus' myriad court battles.

Rambus' did not respond to questions about its calculus for taking the case to trial.


At trial, Rambus' attorneys hammered on an email sent by Micron executive Linda Turner. Turner said in the email that Micron had been requesting that Infineon, Samsung and Hynix lower their prices, which would help "drive Rambus'

away completely."

Micron contended the email was meant to be sarcastic.

The juror told Reuters he did not think the email demonstrated a conspiracy on its own, as there were no corresponding emails from the other companies confirming an agreement to fix prices. Thus the defense explanation - that Turner was being sarcastic - could have been true, he said.

Rambus' also claimed its rivals disrupted its relationship with Intel. In the late 1990s, Intel agreed to use Rambus'' proprietary computer memory chip technology, rather than the industry standard memory chips. But the relationship between Rambus' and Intel soured a couple years before the contract ended in 2002.

A former Intel executive called by the defense described anger toward Rambus' among his colleagues when they learned of Rambus'' plans to sue rivals, instead of making their partnership with Intel a success. Because the evidence from Intel itself tilted against Rambus', the juror said it was difficult to credit Rambus'' allegations.

An Intel spokesman declined to comment on the case.


The three-month trial ended in September, and the jury deliberated for more than eight weeks. Overall the juror described the discussions as occasionally heated but always respectful, and said the group talked of planning a party together sometime soon.

Going into the deliberations, seven of the 12 jurors sided with Rambus', this person said. Nine was the minimum number needed to deliver a verdict.

The jury deadlocked at 7-5 in Rambus'' favor for more than a month, and then, one by one, members began to change their minds.

John Danforth, a former general counsel at Rambus' who still owns company stock, said some important evidence was barred from being presented to the jury -- including facts about how a separate U.S. Department of Justice investigation into price fixing played out.

Several companies, including Hynix, pleaded guilty to price fixing in the DRAM computer memory market. During the Rambus' trial, an attorney for Hynix acknowledged the 2005 plea, saying Hynix cooperated and took responsibility for its actions.

Because the jury repeatedly was told it could only consider Hynix's guilty plea for limited purposes, the price fixing probe did not play a large role in the deliberations, the juror said.

Micron cut a deal with DOJ to avoid prosecution, and the juror said that had he known of the company's role in the probe, it may have made a difference in his deliberations.

Along with Samsung, Infineon also reached a civil settlement with Rambus' before trial, and the juror said he also learned of those details after the trial was over. Had he known, the juror said it would have mattered in deliberations.

After the verdict, Rambus' signaled that some of these issues might be part of its appeal. "We do not agree with several rulings that affected how this case was presented to the jury," Chief Executive Harold Hughes said in a statement.

Ultimately, the juror told Reuters, deliberations took so long because the panel had to sift through a mountain of information - and because they were so deadlocked.

"It wasn't the sandwiches," he said.

The case in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco is Rambus' Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. et al, 04-431105.

(Additional reporting by Noel Randewich and Laird Harrison in San Francisco, and Alison Frankel in New York; Editing by Edward Tobin and Matthew Lewis)

© Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Brasco One who wrote (93445)11/20/2011 12:10:50 AM
From: Skywatcher
1 Recommendation   of 93602
another witty five year old comment...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Don Green11/21/2011 11:05:36 PM
   of 93602
Rambus Deliberations: The ‘Very, Very far End of the Bell Curve’

NOVEMBER 21, 2011, 1:26 PM ET

Law Blog was in a lather last week about the length — more than eight weeks! — of jury deliberations in tech company Rambus’s $4 billion antitrust case against Micron Technology and Hynix Semiconductor.

We are taking nominations for the Longest Jury Deliberations in the Universe, so bring em on, LBers. In the meantime, we touched base with O’Melveny & Myers partner Ken Nissly (pictured below), who represented Hynix, to get some more details.

The trial in San Francisco County Superior Court ran three months. The 12-member jury dealt Rambus a defeat, finding that Hynix and Micron did not conspire to artificially keep the price of chips using Rambus technology high and a competing technology low to hurt the company’s prospects in the market.

You’d think (and by you, we mean Law Blog) that in eight weeks the judge in the case probably fielded dozens of jury notes. Not so, said Nissly.

“There were a couple of requests for testimony but no requests for clarification of the instructions,” Nissly said. In fact, there were fewer than half a dozen notes, he estimated.

The jury schedule wasn’t rigorous. No deliberations on Fridays and, often, jurors would arrive at 8:30 a.m. and leave by early afternoon. Plus, the “more than eight weeks” is a bit deceiving since the jury didn’t meet the week before the verdict, on account of a sick juror.

Still, Nissly said, as deliberations in civil trials go, this one was “at the very, very far end of the bell curve.”

The lawyers in the case had a brush with the jurors briefly while they were back in chambers after the verdict, getting their forms together, Nissly said. But there wasn’t much interaction.

The judge in the case gave the jurors the option of exiting through the chambers or through the front door, where they would likely encounter folks like LB, dying to hear about the marathon deliberations.

“Everyone of them chose to go through chambers,” Nissly said. “I think they were looking forward to leaving the courthouse and getting on with their lives.”

He added: “These people ought to get a lifetime exemption [from jury duty].”

If you’re out there, Rambus jurors, we’d love to hear from you.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: hdl who wrote (93464)11/22/2011 4:26:30 PM
From: im a survivor
   of 93602
The verdict was a shock? Maybe to you and the other longs who only saw RMBS thru rose colored glasses. The bulk of investors knew that RMBS was nothing but a patent/lawsuit/make money the easy way...troll....I mean, all along it was a flawed business model.....Their own customers who provide RMBS with their income, hated rmbs and were ready to jump ship the first chance they had......That is not a good sign for long term success..when your very own customers will leave happily to the competition and were waiting to do so...does not bode well for any company.......RMBS had customers who hated them and a very egotistical state of mind.....They felt entightled to all......they wanted to not do much work of any kind and try to make money the easy way, via the courts.......The verdict was no shock to me.....It was what I expected years ago......Well, glad you seemed to come out of it ok with your previously booked profits so thats good as im sure there are many who lost their life savings.......Cant even imagine how much moola ended up in the pockets of the lawyers....such a shame that so many lives were ruined by rmbs but their attorneys made a fortune..but isnt that how it normally works......not meaning to laugh but I still remember when the shredded doc thing was going on and the judges reaction......that was a very ominous sign........Now I wonder how many people will try to recoup their losses by banking on a win during the appeals process.....I think the damage is done regardless of even if they win an appeal, which is doubtful, imo....but if they do manage a victory after appealing, like I said, the damage is done and so is RMBS, imo......

<<The AT verdict is a shock, a disappointment, a disaster.>>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Don Green12/10/2011 1:33:42 AM
   of 93602


Dec 09, 2011 (SmarTrend(R) Spotlight via COMTEX) -- SmarTrend identified a Downtrend for Rambus (NASDAQ: RMBS) on November 16th, 2011 at $11.28. In approximately 3 weeks, Rambus has returned 32.86% as of today's recent price of $7.57.

Over the past year, Rambus has traded in a range of $4.00 to $22.80 and is now at $7.56, 89% above that low. Over the past week, the 200-day moving average (MA) has gone down 1.7% while the 50-day MA has declined 3.6%.

Rambus Inc. designs, develops, licenses, and markets high-speed chip-to-chip interface technology to enhance the performance and cost-effectiveness of consumer electronics, computer systems, and other electronic systems. The Company licenses semiconductor companies to manufacture and sell memory and logic ICs incorporating Rambus interface technology.

SmarTrend will continue to scan these moving averages and a number of other proprietary indicators for any changes in momentum for shares of Rambus.

Log in and add Rambus (RMBS) to your watchlist today so you can receive a real-time alert when the shares are about to change trend.

Write to Chip Brian at

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Don Green who wrote (93477)12/15/2011 11:47:21 PM
From: nicmar
   of 93602
RMBS. One of those I almost took a position before the jury came in. Any thoughts of the future as where rmbs will go in the short and long term? tia. .. nic

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.