"Most significant and surprising, in our non-legal opinion, is that the defendants in the Rambus antitrust case (Hynix and Micron, now that Infineon has settled) must produce all the documents that have previously been produced to the U.S. DOJ in the unrelated criminal investigation on price-fixing," he said further. "We have been under the assumption that many crucial documents would be 'protected' under the terms of any settlement with the DOJ."There is an adage about making "assumptions".
Snip.
Furthermore, the firm believes that the implied royalty percentage in the Infineon settlement will become a basis for re-negotiation with Samsung and that Rambus' initiation of the antitrust case last year is a potential sore-point for Samsung -- not because Samsung has been named as a defendant, but rather due to the implied collusion aspects.Hello? Rambus has stated repeatedly that the Infineon settlement will not be a basis for re-negotiation. Furthermore, the negotiations will not be occurring in the shadows of a courthouse in Virginia. Finally, the "implied collusion" (and the yet unnamed "Does") are more than a "sore point" - they are the point of a sword. A win for Samsung will be avoiding a courtroom in San Francisco for AT and not finding itself in Judge Whyte's courtroom after Rambus disposes of Hynix. Period.
Read the complete article, replete with Mr. Desai's non-legal "analysis" here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment