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

Third derivative of x posted his report on Yahoo! Here is a link to his Tuesday’s Court Session (1) – nicely done. (I attempted to recommend the post, but as is commonly the case, the Yahoo! servers were busy.) I agree with his observations and chuckled when I read about his being engrossed with Stone’s line of questions. I too, just wanted to listen. (Hat tip to FinzToRite for placing the link in my box.)

Attorney Nissly is a very competent artist. He painted a picture that depicted Mr. Karp as an experienced, insightful manager of IP. Nissly’s delivery, while not soothing to a Ramboid, certainly wasn’t annoying. His cadence was smooth, direct and not combative. An apology for slowing to locate a binder or requesting admission of an exhibit discussed hours earlier appeared sincere and not condescending. Generally, he seemed likeable.

The view of Mr. Karp as an experienced manager of IP – freshly from 7+/- years at Samsung – worked towards Nissly’s efforts to show Judge Whyte that Mr. Karp simply knew that litigation was coming, nearly (if not literally) from day one of his employment at Rambus, which commenced in October of ’97.

Immediately after reviewing Mr. Karp’s relationship(s) with Rambus, Nissly asked Mr. Karp if he was involved in patent litigation while employed at Samsung, which was affirmatively answered. My notes include a statement that Samsung was a “patent litigation magnet regarding DRAM.”

Next followed an inquiry as to if Texas Instruments sought high royalty rates from Samsung, to which Mr. Karp responded “very high,” followed by a short line of questions that resulted in Mr. Karp agreeing that “litigation is an expected development” when high royalty rates are requested.

Then Nissly questioned Mr. Karp on his understanding of “equitable estoppel.” Frankly, I am not certain where Nissly was headed with the line. My guess is that he wanted to show Judge Whyte that Mr. Karp was less than forthcoming in prior testimony (2003), that Mr. Karp was an extremely cagey witness or simply let Mr. Karp know that he, Nissly, had very carefully read everything Mr. Karp had to say in the other Rambus litigation.

Having set the stage by placing on the record that Mr. Karp was experienced in litigation and understood that high royalty rates resulted in litigation (and sent or attempted to send some message regarding equitable estoppel), attorney Nissly settled in to a comfortable path that reviewed Mr. Karp’s employment history, his job interview process with Rambus and early job responsibilities.

More to follow . . .