Rambus Proposed Jury Verdict Form (Conduct-Trial)

Aktuelle Diskussionen über Rambus

Rambus Proposed Jury Verdict Form (Conduct-Trial)

Beitragvon lucky » 17.02.2008, 09:09

Author: NukeJohn

Rambus Proposed Jury Verdict Form

Below is Rambus' proposed jury verdict form. Based on Judge Whyte's comments in his rulings and in open court....Rambus' proposed jury verdict form will likely be very close to the final one issued by HJW.



I. MONOPOLIZATION CLAIM - ELEMENTS

1. Do you find that Hynix, Nanya and Micron have met their burden of proving the
existence of any of the following alleged markets:
a. a market for latency technology
Yes _____ No _____
b. a market for burst length technology
Yes _____ No _____
c. a market for data acceleration technology
Yes _____ No _____
d. a market for clock synchronization technology
Yes _____ No _____
e. a market for precharge technology
Yes _____ No _____
f. a market for write latency technology
Yes _____ No _____

2. If your answer to all subparts of question 1 is “No,” the Presiding Juror should
sign and date the form and notify the Security Guard that you have reached a
verdict.

If your answer to any subpart of question 1 is “Yes,” please proceed to question 3,
below.

3. Do you find that Hynix, Nanya and Micron have met their burden of proving that
prior to Rambus’s withdrawal from JEDEC, there were close substitutes available
to JEDEC for the following:

a. programmable latency
Yes _____ No _____
b. programmable burst
Yes _____ No _____
c. dual edge clocking
Yes _____ No _____
d. on-chip PLL/DLL
Yes _____ No _____
e. auto precharge
Yes _____ No _____
f. programmable write latency
Yes _____ No _____

4. If your answer to all subparts of question 3 is “No,” the Presiding Juror should
sign and date the form and notify the Security Guard that you have reached a
verdict.

If your answer to any subpart of question 3 is “Yes,” please proceed to
question 5.

5. Do you find that Hynix, Nanya and Micron have met their burden of proving that
Rambus has monopoly power in any of the following alleged markets?

a. a market for latency technology
Yes _____ No _____
b. a market for burst length technology
Yes _____ No _____
c. a market for data acceleration technology
Yes _____ No _____
d. a market for clock synchronization technology
Yes _____ No _____
e. a market for precharge technology
Yes _____ No _____
f. a market for write latency technology
Yes _____ No _____

6. If your answer to all subparts of question 5 is “No,” you should proceed to
Section II.

If your answer to any subpart of question 5 is “Yes,” please proceed to
question 7.

7. Do you find that Rambus had a legitimate business reason for the acts or omissions
that resulted in its monopoly power?
Yes _____ No _____

8. If your answer to question 7 is “Yes,” the Presiding Juror should sign and date the
form and notify the Security Guard that you have reached a verdict.
If your answer to question 7 is “No,” please proceed to question 9.

9. Do you find that Hynix, Nanya and Micron have met their burden of proving that
Rambus willfully acquired monopoly power in a relevant market through
anticompetitive acts or practices?
Yes _____ No _____

10. If your answer to question 9 is “No,” you should proceed to Section II.
If your answer to question 9 is “Yes,” please proceed to question 11, below.

Additional Question Regarding Hynix
11. Do you find that Hynix has met its burden of proving that Hynix was injured in its
business or property because of Rambus’s anticompetitive conduct?
Yes _____ No _____
Please proceed to question 12.

Additional Question Regarding Nanya
12. Do you find that Nanya has met its burden of proving that Nanya was injured in its
business or property because of Rambus’s anticompetitive conduct?
Yes _____ No _____
Please proceed to question 13.

Additional Question Regarding Micron
13. Do you find that Micron has met its burden of proving that Micron was injured in
its business or property because of Rambus’s anticompetitive conduct?
Yes _____ No _____
Please proceed to Section II.


II. ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE CLAIM - ELEMENTS

14. Do you find that Hynix, Nanya and Micron have met their burden of proving that
Rambus had a specific intent to achieve monopoly power in a relevant market?
Yes _____ No _____

15. If your answer to question 14 was “No,” you should sign and date the verdict. If
your answer to question 14 was “Yes,” you should answer question 16, below.

16. Do you find that Hynix, Nanya and Micron have met their burden of proving that
there was a dangerous probability that Rambus would achieve the goal of
obtaining monopoly power in a relevant market?
Yes _____ No _____


III. CHECKING AND SIGNING OF VERDICT FORM

You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it
accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Presiding Juror should then sign and date
the verdict form in the spaces below and notify the Security Guard that you have reached a
verdict. The Presiding Juror should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the
jury is brought back into the courtroom.


DATED: ___________, 2008 By:
Presiding Juror
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.as ... id=3903993
Benutzeravatar
lucky
Administrator
 
Beiträge: 1606
Registriert: 14.12.2007, 16:01
Wohnort: Cali, Colombia

Beitragvon lucky » 17.02.2008, 10:59

Sollte der Fragebogen an die Juroren tatsächlich ähnlich wie von Rambus vorgeschlagen aussehen, kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, dass das Kartell als Sieger aus dem Verfahren hervorgehen wird. Bisher haben die Hauptbelastungszeugen des Kartells wenig vorbringen können. Crisp wurde zwar in ein schlechtes Licht gerückt, doch werden die Rambus-Zeugen das wieder geradebiegen. Egal was Crisp innerhalb der JEDEC getan oder gelassen hat, das Kartell wusste um die Rambuspatente und der Möglichkeit, dass Rambus seine Claims erweitern kann.

Rambus wird einiges an Zeugen aufbieten, die bezeugen können, dass das Kartell über die NDAs genauestens über die Rambuserfindungen informiert waren und diese auch ausserhalb der JEDEC besprochen haben.

Hier mal die Zeugenliste von Rambus. Rambus hat ja bisher noch nicht seine Sichtweise darstellen können, bisher nur die Zeugen des Kartells befragen können, was aber mM nach schon sehr positiv für Rambus war. Wenn Rambus dran ist, wird's erst richtig unangenehm für das Kartell.


Rambus’s Witness List
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.as ... id=3876082

Pretrial Statement, Section F
January 11, 2008
Case No. 00-20905, 05-00334, 06-00244

Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Re: Pretrial Preparation, Rambus hereby submits
the list of the fact witnesses it presently intends to call, or may call, to testify in its case. This list
does not include witnesses that Rambus identifies solely for impeachment or rebuttal. This list is
consistent with the amended and reduced live trial witness list that Rambus filed with the Court
on December 5, 2007, except that this list has further been reduced by one -- Rambus has
withdrawn Dan Johnson in light of the parties’ stipulation to exclude evidence of any party’s
document retention, document destruction, or alleged spoliation.
As per the Court’s Standing Order, Rambus designates for each witness the likely subject
matter of his or her testimony and whether Rambus presently “intends” to call the witness, or
“may” call the witness if the need arises. This list does not include Rambus’s expert witnesses,
who have been disclosed through their expert reports.

1. Paul Anderson: Rambus intends to call Mr. Anderson to testify regarding the matters
that have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including,
inter alia: Rambus’s patent prosecution and Rambus/Nanya licensing negotiations.

2. Theodore Brown: Rambus may call Mr. Brown regarding Hynix’s attorneys’ fees.

3. D.S. Chung: Rambus intends to call Mr. Chung to testify regarding the matters that have
been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter alia:
the value of Rambus’s inventions; the existence or non-existence of economically viable
non-infringing alternatives; and the potential scope of patent coverage of Rambus’s
inventions.


4. Roland Cortes: Rambus may call Mr. Cortes to testify regarding Rambus’s patent
prosecution.

5. Carl Everett: Rambus intends to call Mr. Everett to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his prior deposition testimony, including, inter alia: his
knowledge of the memory bottleneck and the computer industry's response;
dissemination of information regarding Rambus's inventions to DRAM industry
participants and their reactions thereto
; and the value of Rambus's inventions.

6. Michael Farmwald: Rambus intends to call Dr. Farmwald to testify regarding the
matters that have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony,
including, inter alia: the conception and reduction to practice of Rambus's inventions;
the founding of Rambus; Rambus's general business background; Rambus's technology;
dissemination of information regarding Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry reaction thereto; the value of Rambus’s inventions; and the
existence or non-existence of economically viable non-infringing alternatives.

7. James Gasbarro: Rambus intends to call Mr. Gasbarro to testify regarding the matters
that have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including,
inter alia: Rambus's general business background; Rambus's technology; the value of
Rambus’s inventions; the DRAM industry’s reactions to Rambus’s inventions; and the
existence or non-existence of economically viable non-infringing alternatives.


8. Scott Griffin: Rambus may call Mr. Griffin to testify regarding the matters that have
been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter alia:
the prosecution of Rambus's patents.

9. David Gustavson: Rambus may call Dr. Gustavson to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter
alia: the potential scope of Rambus patents; SyncLink; the value of Rambus’s
inventions; the DRAM industry’s reactions to Rambus’s inventions; and the existence or
non-existence of economically viable non-infringing alternatives
.

10. Sharon Holt: Rambus may call Ms. Holt to testify regarding Rambus's licensing
practices and the reasonableness of the royalties it seeks.

11. Mark Horowitz: Rambus intends to call Dr. Horowitz to testify regarding the matters
that have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including,
inter alia: the conception and reduction to practice of Rambus's inventions; the founding
of Rambus; Rambus's general business background; Rambus's technology; the
dissemination of information regarding Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry reaction thereto; the value of Rambus’s inventions; and the
existence or non-existence of economically viable non-infringing alternatives.

12. Avo Kanadjian: Rambus may call Mr. Kanadjian to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter
alia: dissemination of information regarding Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry participants and industry reaction thereto; the value of Rambus’s inventions; and the
potential scope of patent coverage of Rambus's inventions.

13. Joel Karp: Rambus intends to call Mr. Karp to testify regarding the matters that have
been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter alia:
communications at Samsung, and between Samsung and Rambus, during the
Rambus/Samsung licensing negotiations in the 1992-1997 time period; Rambus's IP and
Samsung awareness of Rambus's patents; dissemination of information regarding
Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry reaction thereto; the
value of Rambus’s inventions; the existence or non-existence of economically viable
non-infringing alternatives; and the potential scope of patent coverage of Rambus’s
inventions.

14. Mario Martinez: Rambus may call Mr. Martinez to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter
alia: SyncLink; Hynix business practices; dissemination of information regarding
Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry reaction thereto; and
the value of Rambus’s inventions.

15. David Mooring: Rambus may call Mr. Mooring to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter
alia: Rambus's general business background and licensing agreements; dissemination of
information regarding Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry
reaction thereto; the value of Rambus’s inventions; and Samsung’s knowledge in 1994-
1997 of the potential scope of Rambus’s intellectual property.

16. Bao Nguyen: Rambus may call Mr. Nguyen regarding Micron’s attorneys’ fees.

17. Allen Roberts: Rambus intends to call Mr. Roberts to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter
alia: Rambus's general business background; Rambus's technology; prosecution of
Rambus's patents; dissemination of information regarding Rambus’s inventions to
DRAM industry
participants and industry reaction thereto; value of Rambus’s inventions;
and the existence or non-existence of economically viable non-infringing alternatives.

18. Gilbert Russell: Rambus may call Mr. Russell to testify regarding the matters that have
been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter alia:
Samsung and Infineon business practices and knowledge of Rambus IP; SyncLink;
dissemination of information regarding Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry reaction thereto; the existence or non-existence of economically
viable non-infringing alternatives; and the potential scope of patent coverage of
Rambus’s inventions.

19. Neil Steinberg: Rambus may call Mr. Steinberg to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter
alia: the prosecution of Rambus’s patents and Rambus’s licensing activities.

20. Farhad Tabrizi: Rambus intends to call Mr. Tabrizi to testify regarding the matters that
have been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter
alia: Hynix business practices and issues relating to Rambus intellectual property; the
dissemination of information regarding Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry reaction thereto; the value of Rambus’s inventions; the
existence or non-existence of economically viable non-infringing alternatives; and the
potential scope of patent coverage of Rambus’s inventions.

21. Geoff Tate: Rambus intends to call Mr. Tate to testify regarding the matters that have
been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter alia:
Rambus's general business background and licensing agreements; the dissemination of
information regarding Rambus’s inventions to DRAM industry
participants and industry
reaction thereto; the value of Rambus’s inventions; Rambus’s licensing negotiations with
Nanya; and Samsung’s knowledge in 1994-1997 of the potential scope of Rambus’s
intellectual property.

22. Kai Tseng: Rambus may call Mr. Tseng to testify regarding Nanya’s attorneys fees and
the Rambus/Nanya licensing negotiations.

23. Lester Vincent: Rambus may call Mr. Vincent to testify regarding the matters that have
been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter alia:
the prosecution of Rambus's patents and the business justifications for non-disclosure of
patent applications.

24. Hans Wiggers: Rambus may call Mr. Wiggers to testify regarding the matters that have
been the subject of his deposition, hearing and/or trial testimony, including, inter alia:
the Manufacturers’ knowledge of Rambus’s technology and the JEDEC patent policy.


In addition, Rambus may call the following individuals by playing or reading prior sworn
testimony:

Alexander Benedix Gerald Lee Andreas Von Zitzewitz
Scott Chang Jinho Lee
Yun-Ho Choi JJ Lee
D.S. Chung Jung Bae Lee
Ed Chung Willie Liu
T. Rudd Corwin Tyler Lowrey
Harold Eggers Jeff Mailloux
Hoyt Fleming Ken McGhee
Billy Garrett Todd Merritt
Jackie Gross Willibald Meyer
Alan Grossmeier Ewald Michael
GM Han Pat Moran
William Hovis JG Nam
Karlheinz Horninger Heinz-Joachim Neubauer
Ken Hurley Jerold Olson
I.S. Hwang Phi Lin Pai
Howard Kalter Betty Prince
Brent Keeth John Radanovich
Gordon Kelley Desi Rhoden
Mark Kellogg Mike Seibert
John Kelly Duk Il Shin
Norbert Kemfle Howard Sussman
Kevin Kettler Farhad Tabrizi
Oliver Kiehl Terry Walther
Kevin Kilbuck Steve Wang
S.B. Kil Roy Weinstein
Chang Hyun Kim Keith Weinstock
Myung Ho Kim Brett Williams
Seong Soo Kim MK Yoo
Sung Chul Kim ** Rambus also intends to designate prior testimony from
Kye Hyun Kyung Kevin Ryan who was withdrawn from Micron’s live trial
witness list on January 9, 2008
Benutzeravatar
lucky
Administrator
 
Beiträge: 1606
Registriert: 14.12.2007, 16:01
Wohnort: Cali, Colombia


Zurück zu Diskussionen

Wer ist online?

Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 1 Gast




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.


cron