HJ McBride 28.07.2011

HJ McBride 28.07.2011

Beitragvon lucky » 29.07.2011, 13:45

Rambus Free Press, Jul 28, 2011, part 1, --- Starduster

As in most days when we have court after the jury leaves it becomes the most important part of the day. I will start there.

As the jury was dismissed for the day juror #2 asked McBride how the trial was progressing on the timeline.

McBride – If this was a 100 yard dash at the Olympics we would be at the 30 yard mark and we would be on a pace to set a new world record. However it is possible that we injure a hamstring muscle and fall short of the record.



The plaintiff Rambus has rested its case in chief. It was at 12:50pm. McBride let the jury go for the day and held the attorneys till 1:30 to get some more work done.

McBride was told that he had 8 to 10 more designations to do for the trial. One will be dealt with tomorrow morning, Linda Bromley (Bromly)?. She is a 3rd party video from Compac for the defense. Speaking of the defense, it looks like Micron will go first and McBride has instructed Micron/Hynix that each witness must be identified to the jury as to Micron or Hynix witness.

A video of Leddige, a low level Engineer for Intel, will be next week. A debate at 3pm today will be over the exhibits that are planned with the video. More on that later.

Rambus had an Intel Declaration that it wanted to put into evidence during the defense case. This involved into a heated argument that Rambus lost. It turns out that the declaration was not a legal business record and could not used against the other parties without their permission. The legal term was that it could be admitted with a stipulation of all parties. Hynix did not want it so McBride said it could not come in because there was no way in the trial to separate the admission as to only one party. McBride wanted to do a legal argument with Perry over this but Perry said all he was looking for was a ruling so McBride gave it to him. It could not come in. Perry was not upset, he seemed to be pleased. I suspect that this will be used by Rambus later in the trial that Micron/Hynix must get a stipulation from Rambus to enter documents. Just my guess.

We took a lunch break at 1:30 and came back at 3 for some more festivities.



More later. I am baby sitting my 2 month old granddaughter and she thinks she is more important. Clever, these kids, aren’t they.



Starduster
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp ... d=10768594



Rambus Free Press, Jul 28, 2011, part 2, --- Starduster


At the end of the day with the jury still there Rambus had an agreed stipulation with Hynix that its net worth in their 10k in Mar 2011 was $7.371 billion. Another stipulation with Micron agreed that their net worth on June 2011 was $10.032 billion. McBride then told the jury that it had nothing to do with the damages that they had been hearing about. It involved another charge and that they would just have to wait until he gave them jury instructions before they apply those numbers.



After coming back at 3pm, there was a very heated discussion regarding the Samsung Plea agreement that included RDRAM as being part of the price fixing scheme. In the green binder was an order that said that it could not come into the trial unless certain conditions were met. Rambus argued that those conditions were met. Notably that Micron/Hynix on cross portrayed Samsung as a good partner for Rambus as their most friendly and productive DRAM partner with the best rates and so forth. That crossed the line and wasn’t true, according to the DOJ and Rambus. Samsung was playing both sides and as Tucker put it was “having their cake and eating it to”. Micron/Hynix also were arguing that there were not enough players, Micron and Hynix, to have an effective cartel which was misleading the jury. Rambus made an excellent case that they needed to put in the Samsung agreement to counter these points.

McBride – I agree with Rambus that Samsung was playing both sides and the defendants have portrayed Samsung as Rambus’s favorite fan. Defendants have put in evidence that Samsung has been championing RDRAM and it is not true. I have to balance what has happened. I want the full Samsung DOJ agreement to read and then I will make my decision. What gives me pause is that Samsung is not here to allow the defendants to cross examine Samsung. (He gives me the impression that he is leaning strongly with Rambus)

Rambus then requested the jury have a redacted version of Hynix’s plea with the DOJ for the jury room deliberation. The wanted it because it had all the special stamps and notices of the Federal courts on it. McBride turned down Rambus because Special Instruction #1 had the same information on it and was read to the jury at the beginning of the trial. He said that would be in the jury room and if they had both it would be compounding.

Rambus told McBride that Micron still had a conditional Leniency agreement that depended on their cooperation with other parties and at the end of the day they had to prove their cooperation.

Next we went through all the exhibits for Leddige, an Intel low level engineer. Rambus called his deposition a total waste of time. He was not a decision maker and was in no position to speak for what Intel’s frame of mind was. McBride said that Intel’ s frame of mind could change minute by minute and that this was just one person in Intel that was giving what he thought at that moment and let all of it in.

We meet tomorrow at 10am and perhaps in the afternoon.

I will have more later on the jury portion of today.

Starduster
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp ... d=10768717



Rambus Free Press, Jul 28, 2011, part 3,--- Starduster

Allen of Hynix is doing the cross of Tucker.

Allen—Are you saying that every DDR should have been RDRAM?

Tucker – No, that is for the jury to decide. All I have done is an analysis of where RDRAM would have gone if not for the alleged conspiracy.

Allen – If you look at the chart from yesterday you will see that in 2001 there were no damages for the year 2001. Do you agree?

Tucker – Yes, in 2001 RDRAM had more net sales in revenue that SDRAM and DDR so if we change all of SDRAM and DDR to RDRAM and then did the offset you will see that there is no monetary damage. That changed from that year forward.

Allen – On you last slide from yesterday you listed all of the waterfall damages. If we find in our case that RDRAM did not waterfall then we can just erase those segments that you contend were a result of waterfall, yes?

Tucker – Not exactly, RDRAM could still have gained a portion of some markets so you could have some damages remaining.

Allen then questioned that AMD and Apple were not on any of the slides and suggested to Tucker that we then could eliminate the DDR that both these companies used and reduce the damages. Tucker replied that it was a question for the jury and they would have to decide why AMD and Apple did not choose RDRAM, was it the alleged conspiracy or the product?

Allen – But if we do prove that it was the product you model will not allow us to deduct that segment will it?

Tucker – No. It will have to be recalculated.

Allen – Is it not true that if the jury wants to back out any OEM damages they don’t have the information from your analysis?

Tucker – Yes, from my analysis they don’t have the individual breakouts numbers.

Allen then had Tucker read the Rambus 1997 10K and on page 10 it listed the potential troubles of investing and included statements that it depended on Intel and their ability to work with Intel in the market.

The slide from yesterday that listed all the companies that had controller likenesses with Rambus was once again put up. I copied it and in boldface are the ones that had a licenses and Rambus received money from them. The rest had a license but never produced controllers or never paid.

IBM, VLSI Tech, Vitesse, Toshiba, TI, SwithCore, SIS, Si Optic Networks, Silicon Value, S3, Raycer Graphics, Pixeifusion, OKI, Nvida, NEC, National Semiconductor, LSI Logic, Intel, IBM, Acer, Aglient/Verigy, AMD, Compac, DEC, Extreme, Hynix, Matsusinta,and Hitachi.



Allen --- Why did you show all these companies and yet only 15 of them paid any royalties?

Tucker – This was to demonstrate the waterfall effect of RDRAM to the controller market and Rambus already had contracts with these companies.


More later, Starduster
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp ... d=10768816



Rambus Free Press, Jul 28, 2011, part 4, --- Starduster


Allen – Your royalty rates on controllers are very high. You will have to admit that the amount of damages for controllers is very high. Is it not true that SOC, system on a chip, has a high selling price and at a fixed percentage that distorts the income for controllers?

Tucker – It is true, those contracts are signed with a royalty rate so if the chip is for more the royalty is more. Usually in a contract there is a cap on the royalty of a chip, but that is something each business will arrange when they sign a contract. There were 3 reasons why the controller damages are higher, they had a higher rate 3%, the controller cost more that memory, and as you have stated with the SOC they became more complex.

Then came a discussion about a sealed document called a settlement between Rambus and Intel that Hynix claimed ended the relationship between Rambus and Intel in Sep 2001.

Cross by Hynix is over.

Cross by Micron is done by Jon Peterburg.

Peterburg was working on the fact that profit for the memory manufactures was not considered by Rambus. Micron lost money and was losing money but the royalty rate for Rambus meant that Rambus would make money while Micron was losing money. Tucker replied yes, that is the way a royalty contract works. Then Peterburg brought out a list of 500 documents that Tucker used in his analysis and asked Tucker why he only reviewed one deposition. That was William of Intel. Tucker replied that he or his team reviewed all 500. Tucker could not recall why Williams of Intel was the only deposition.

Peterburg pulls out a copy of Williams deposition and reads – “I think it (RDRAM) was dead by April of 2000”.

Peterburg then asks Tucker why he shows DDR and DDR2 as the same and puts them together in his presentation and if he did that why is not XDR in there also.

Tucker – I considered that DDR and DDR2 were just improvements over the same technology and XDR was the next generation of memory.

Peterburg – Did you take into account that maybe Micron did not have the money to invest in RDRAM and that there was a serious downturn during that timeframe? Maybe Micron did not have the money to ramp RDRAM.

Tucker – I know that the industry was having a downturn at that time.

Peterburg – Did you know that GDDR was in mobile phones and that it was a completely different technology?

Tucker – No, I am not testifying as an expert in tech.

Peterburg – In your book example yesterday do you know that if you print a book and it doesn’t sell that the person that makes the book then loses money?

Tucker – Yes, that is in the nature of business and why you have to make decisions on what the company is going to do.

Cross by Micron is over.

Redirect by Eskovitch, Rambus

Rambus wanted to show a “PC World” magazine advertisement that IBM had placed that offered an IBM computer with RDRAM. There were objections and McBride would not allow it in.

Then Rambus showed a Williams (Intel) deposition that said “there is no tech reason now for RDRAM, all the bugs were fixed”

Tucker is excused at 12:50.



That is all for the day, Starduster
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp ... d=10768989
Benutzeravatar
lucky
Administrator
 
Beiträge: 1606
Registriert: 14.12.2007, 16:01
Wohnort: Cali, Colombia

Zurück zu Court-Reports

Wer ist online?

Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 2 Gäste




Disclaimer:
Diese Website steht in keiner Beziehung zu Rambus Inc. Alle verwendeten Markennamen sind Eigentum der jeweiligen Firmen. Rambus.info hat keinerlei kommerziellen Interessen und stellt nur eine Plattform zur Verfügung um sich über Rambus auszutauschen. Die hier angeboteten Informationen erheben weder einen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit noch auf Richtigkeit. Die im Forum geäußerten Meinungen sind die Meinungen der jeweiligen Verfasser und stellen keine Aufforderung dar in Rambus zu investieren. Rambus, RDRAM, RaSer, XDR, FlexPhase, FlexIO, RIMM, SO-RIMM, und das Rambus logo sind Schutzmarken oder registrierte Warenzeichen von Rambus Inc. in den USA und anderen Ländern. Rambus und andere Parteien können Warenzeichenrechte auch an anderen Bezeichnungen haben, die hier verwendet werden.