Hynix v Rambus - 10/18/05 - Part II

For the record, I specifically make no claim as to the completeness or accuracy of my recollection, nor do I claim any special skills or education . . . Treowth is for entertainment purposes and should not be used for making investment or legal decisions . . .

Before I forget . . . there is all day parking for $7.00 located across the street from the courthouse - San Carlos and 2nd. No need to pay $2.00 / hour.

The witness for the entire day was Joel Karp. Mr. Karp has a storied career. He worked at MIT lab, Ford as a semiconductor engineer is the 60’s, Intel – he was employee number 20 (that is not a typo) designing memory products, Samsung patent licensing and litigation Sept ’90 – July ‘97, Rambus IP management Oct ’97 – July ’00, and inventor and consultant.

During the later part of Mr. Karp’s regular employment with Rambus, he had a serious medical condition which required surgery. After leaving the regular employ of Rambus, he has been a consultant. Mr. Karp charges $400/hour and owns 36,000 shares of Rambus stock.

Mr. Karp was hired by RMBS to manage IP.

The focus of attorney Nissly’s questioning appeared to be directed at establishing a record. Mr. Karp is a professional and answered question after question carefully. If he didn’t recall, he said so. If he didn’t understand the question, he asked. He pulled his reading glasses down to his eyes numerous occasions as he peered at documents in print and on his monitor.

Mr. Karp wasn’t flustered and maintained his humor. On one occasion when attorney Nissly was trying to “refresh” Mr. Karp’s memory he (Nissly) read testimony to Karp and asked if he got it right? Mr. Karp responded that you are “reading very good.”

I am guessing that Hynix (Nissly) attempted to build a record that would show that RMBS destroyed records after they knew they were going to litigate or at a minimum, after RMBS thought they would litigate to enforce their patents.

Hours of questions delved into notes that Karp maintained in a binder while at RMBS – classically on graph paper – and following the paths of documents outlining goals and licensing / litigation strategy. There was some unresolved confusion whether one particular document was a draft or a final report, which may have reduced the time setting value of that document.

Mr. Karp was careful to clarify his use of terms. For example, he recalled his time at Samsung when documents were regularly stamped “for settlement purposes only.” A “settlement” did not require the filing of a lawsuit, just that the parties were negotiating. The use of that term carried over into his time at Rambus.

More to follow . . . in the morning.