Judge Whyte wrote:
Hynix's moving papers distort the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court.
and later ...
The court's decision provides no basis for such (Hynix's) hyperbole.
and then . . .
The court recognizes that it reached a different conclusion than Judge Payne rendered in the Infineon litigation and that this difference may result is some unfair disparity between licensing costs of Infineon and those of other DRAM manufacturers.
Rambus doubters, feel free to read the above again. No spoliation. Judge Whyte doesn't agree with Judge Payne. Disparity between licensing costs.
Read Judge Whyte's Order linked here.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I consider my youngest daughter an authority when it comes to distinguishing and differentiating matters that are hardly distinguishable.
Like on the matters of "reasonably probable" and "reasonably foreseeable" that anchored Hynix's 2-pronged motions, my daughter would have simply ruled:
"SAME DIFFERENCE! MOTIONS DENIED!"
Still on Rambushire, as the DE JURE Grand Emperor thereof:
--- like I said before, on all peripheral matters, THE COAST IS CLEAR; FULL SPEED AHEAD!
--- as regards MU's latest filings, I simply consider them as "begging for attention with the view of a settlement ala IFX." My advice to Rambus in this regard: FIGHT MU TO THE HILT!
Come to think of it, Judge White's Order of today simply KILLED MU's cause of action for "R.I.C.O." !!!
Is the Payneful One listening?
Post a Comment