InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 17023
Next 10
Followers 2
Posts 398
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/09/2005

Re: stratertele post# 9542

Monday, 04/03/2006 11:02:10 PM

Monday, April 03, 2006 11:02:10 PM

Post# of 17023
On my earlier post only half copied...here is the full post:

Rambus wanted an Intel Exec to testify (name???)...it was the individual that signed on behalf of Intel in 1996 agreement for the INTC/RMBS. Rambus wanted to provide information as to need for a solution to the bottle neck problem. Hynix argued that the witness was not properly disclosed to them, Rambus differed...Hynix won that one...but Whyte stated he could change his mind later according to need.

Conduct trial will be moved back a bit to accomodate Whyte for criminal cases...was May 15th.

Hynix wanted Crisp to testify because at some point he provided testimony in a deposition that the bus was only a multiplex bus.

Rambus counterd that this was in the time frame after patent application and prior to issuing the patents, and before Rambus "legally" widened their claim language to cover other products. Whyte ruled for Rambus...Crisp will not testify.

That is my 3 cents. I have even greater respect for the LTLs that provide such detail in their posts on this trial of monumental proportions.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent RMBS News