From Empiricum's Docket - Guest Editorial

Reviewing the contents of a court docket is like reading a blow-by-blow and round-by-round account of a boxing match, sans a ringside announcer and a bell. To a layman, encountering some legal and technical terms would make the experience even more boring. While reading the FTC and Hynix dockets, with all the redactions and in camera proceedings, I thought on several occasions that I was reading a case involving national security issues and / or a minor child whose name is mandated by law not to be disclosed. After reading each and every entry and a few available links contained therein, I was wishing that I have a line-item veto power with the corresponding power to insert a desired item. In the end, my boredom was supplanted by anger and disgust as I noticed how Rambus was ambushed, bullied and manipulated by some cartel members in the proceedings.

The FTC docket shows that Micron, IBM, Mosaid, Samsung, IFX, Mitshubishi, NEC, Toshiba and the US DOJ, et. al., all went to party before then Judge James Timony, who was replaced by Judge Stephen McGuire.

Our discussion today pertains mainly to the participation of the US DOJ in both cases and point out a few lapses by the Rambus defense team with the hope that matters will be corrected in both instances.

My review of dockets showed that Rambus filed a vigorous opposition and objection to the DOJ motion to limit discovery in the FTC case.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/030106ramresptodojmo.pdf

This leads me to wonder why Rambus did not file the same opposition and objection in the Hynix case with Judge Ronald Whyte. Is this an oversight or a product of a litigation strategy on Rambus' part? If it is the latter, I do not understand the underlying reason for such strategy. Gregory Stone, the lead counsel for Rambus, should remember that matters that are not raised by objection or otherwise at the first opportunity are considered waived and precluded from being asserted later on appeal. He should also take into consideration the "shotgun defense" style of his opponents. They assert anything and everything imaginable, however irrelevant and tangential some of their "defenses" are. I strongly suggest that Stone should immediately withdraw his non-opposition to the DOJ's motion to limit discovery and file a vigorous objection to preserve Rambus' right on the matter in the same manner and style he did in the FTC ! I would expect that Judge Whyte will grant such Rambus motion, if filed, in light of his perceived liberal attitude towards amendments and late filings of claims and defenses such as his recent Order to allow Hynix to amend its complaint to assert "unclean hands." This differentiates Whyte from Judge Payne who refuses to allow Rambus to discover and introduce the JRA documents.

As regards Nathaniel Cousins, I reiterate my call for his removal from the DOJ DRAM cartel investigations for the reasons I have already stated before. I also applaud the efforts of our friends in the Yahoo! RMBS message board for their discussions yesterday regarding this matter. I wish them well.

Again, thank you for coming to the Banquet and I wish you all a spring-like and a peaceful weekend.

Empiricum

[DISCLAIMER and DISCLOSURES: The discussions contained above are NOT intended as investment and/or legal advice. Rather, they are for the evaluation and analysis of self-confessed Rambus, Inc., shareholders. The reader is strongly advised to conduct his / her own "due diligence" and / or consult a financial or legal advisor before acting on matters herein discussed. I am a Rambus shareholder since the year 2000 with a long term view on the company. This Forum is created solely on my own initiative and discretion and is NOT being pursued on behalf of Rambus, Inc., or any of its officers or directors, or for anyone for that matter.]