From the land of frogs and turtles, greeks and geeks, and such other exotic screen names, which is sometimes called the Yahoo! Rambus Inc. stock message board, Treowth's good friend, BENNETTMI forwarded the following highly significant posts:
Yahoo! RMBS
Yahoo! RMBS
Based on the above linked court development information, it has become apparent that Furniss, Hynix's lead counsel, is getting more and more desperate. Previously, it was reported that he was complaining to the honorable Judge Whyte about the ramblings of the Ramboids on stock message boards, particularly the land of exotic names. Wait 'til he reads this op-ed here on Treowth. He might just suddenly quit!
Ordinarily, counsel may present evidence favorable to his cause and deliberately omits those that may be harmful. This usually happens in the presentation of testimonial evidence. But NOT in documentary or demonstrative evidence such as an email or a chart. If counsel purposely omits a relevant portion thereof and gets caught, he dearly pays for it because he could be perceived as "doctoring" the evidence and/or deliberately hiding something from the jury and the matter affects his credibility. That exactly happened in the HYNIX V. RAMBUS case in San Jose, CA. Furniss tried to pull a fast one, and Stone stayed alert and caught and exposed it!
This is reminiscent of the Chris Darden flap in the O.J. case regarding the gloves that did not fit. That was the turning point in that case.
A lead counsel who loses his credibility can never be rehabilitated unlike a witness on the stand. Furniss blew it, and he knows it! He gambled and lost!
The Furniss email flap is most significant and decisive for the above reason and another: the omitted portion concerns the acknowledgement by Hynix of the VALIDITY of the Rambus patents! This issue invokes the equitable principle of ESTOPPEL EN PAIS (estoppel by conduct) such that Hynix cannot now question the validity of the Rambus patents especially considering that Rambus and Hynix entered into a licensing contract which was eventually breached by Hynix. The contract satisfies the principle of detrimental reliance and Hynix should be held accountable.
Hopefully, Gregory Stone will pound on these issues in his closing arguments. When he does, the case is over but the shouting! JMHO.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Thanks EMP!
Thanks ANY DONKEY!
You are very welcome, Jester.
It was a great pleasure writing that op-ed. My next one will deal with illegal immigration and point out how the arguments of the pundits and the politicos are all "borderline," with no pun intended.
BTW.... After the closing arguments, expect Rambus counsel Stone to move for a directed verdict. This is done as a matter of course. But in this case, there is a good chance that he might be granted as to certain claims, or to be more appropriate, counterclaims. The remainder will be decided by the jury. JMHO.
Post a Comment