Thursday, December 22, 2005

Hager - down for 2005 (so far)

Last year Fred Hager followers had a great year, up about 150%. No that is not a typo.

This year has been a tough one with Hager giving back some winnings and down about 32% through November 2005. Hager is the original Ramboid.

Peter Brimelow describes Rambus . . .

A designer and licenser of intellectual property related to memory chips, Rambus has been embroiled in patent litigation. The cases could be worth billions of dollars in royalties.

Read Mr. Brimelow's piece on newsletters at Market Watch linked here.

Fred Hager's site linked here.

Photo courtesy of

Hat tip to Joe, the Wizard of Pinehurst, for the link.



Indeed, Rambus is "embroiled in patent litigation." But Peter Brimelow did not say how and why Rambus got "embroiled" which would have explained why Hager's portfolio, like most Ramboids', is way down. Ah, just another so-called "analyst," this Brimelow is. He did not even mention Judge Payne and the CC in the FTC, to cite a few. Let's take the case of Judge Payne, as an example. This judge can no longer hide his unmitigated bias against Rambus that in his order the other day, he sorrily bungled on his mentioned compliance dates! Take FTC as another example. The CC kept harping about spoliation as a smoke screen on the main issue of unfair competition and monopoly which are the main thrusts of his "case" against Rambus. That issue has been effectively crushed by Judge McGuire which explains why he would rather cite Judge Timony who did not even try the case. And so are the peripheral issues, by McGuire and the CAFC. If CC can come to his senses and do some justice as his oath requires him to do, he should cause for the dismissal of the case against Rambus and IMMEDIATELY institute a new case against the cartel who have already pled guilty in the DOJ case. Why would the CC refuse to do so? Is it because their closest friend, MU, would be in the forefront of that case, if filed?

I wish Peter Brimelow mentioned the above in his "analysis" !

empiricum said...

Just a few thoughts on the spoliation issue:

Forget for a moment the positive ruling on the matter by Judge McGuire. Also disregard completely Judge Payne's biased and twisted thinking and reasoning on the same matter. But let's deal squarely with our chances with Judge Whyte. Rambus admitted that there was spoliation prior to litigation. But denied that it was in contemplation of the litigation(s).Granting that Rambus is telling the truth in that regard, the subsequent discovery by Rambus of the tapes and production of the same in court, if all done in good faith, should effectively negate the charge of spoliation. Judge Whyte, therefore, should give weight to the production of the tapes either in mitigation, if not total exoneration. Perhaps he did which could explain his reported setting up or scheduling of a PATENT PRE-TRIAL.


empiricum said...

What is the portent of Judge Whyte's patent pre-trial scheduling? Do I smell "omelet 2"? Will he serve it tomorrow? JMHO.

Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites