Friday, December 01, 2006

Song of the day


Did you see this post the other day on the InvestorVillage RMBS board?

It proclaims, among other things, "Guessing a settlement within 6 weeks"

Despite enduring hundreds more steps than anyone might have predicted in the Rambus saga to date, the Kool-Aid Kabo Klubbers always think we are ................

"One Step Away" by Michael McDonald (1990)

Michael McDonald -- Take It To Heart

Is everyone happy? I made no comment about the thieving and shareholder-abusive olive branch extenders known as Rambus mnagement!

Submitted by FinzToRite.

4 comments:

jester said...

Very proud of you Mr.Donkey for not being emotional. Most of us know only too well about those "thieving and shareholder-abusive olive branch extenders known as Rambus mnagement!" VBG

Anonymous said...

From Y! via TIG

Laboring under a sad misconception. (three part consolidated.)

"Rambus has filed this appeal out of an abundance of caution. Rambus prevailed in the district court......."

http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/Ram...

Perhaps having more caution in assertion of patents previously found invalid and unassertable due to litigation misconduct (a ruling affirmed on appeal to the CAFC, before which Rambus makes these inane prattlings) would have been a course better followed by the appelant.

Leaving that aside, it's an astounding scofflaw who decides that they stand as a private appeals court to overturn the findings of the Federal District bench in Virginia:

http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/200...

"A Rule 41 (a) (2) dismissal is a court order that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties. It is only granted after the court exercizes its discretion, and thus bears the necessary judicial imprimatur. The necessary conclusion then is that the voluntary dismissal with prejudice in this case made Samsung the prevailing party under 35 USC Sect. 285."

Not satisfied with their first erronious declarations concerning their case and the Law, Rambus expands on their inanities by thumbing their nose at the clearly stated precepts of the CAFC before which they duplicitously argue for the dismissal of their own appeal on the erronious presumption of "victory" over Samsung in what was decided against Rambus as an "exceptional case" brought heedlessly and recklessly due to their prior misconduct:

http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/Ram...

"The only cases Samsung cites involving reputational injury as a basis for standing to appeal concernin attourneys appealing formal reprimands imposed against them."

Yet we've readily produced the CAFC's own affirmation that Rambus's nonsensical pleadings cannot prevail:

" In fact, the amount of attorney fees awarded may be zero, even though the case is exceptional. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 781 F.2d 198, 201, 228 USPQ 367, 369 (Fed. Cir. 1986)."

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
01-1201
SPECIAL DEVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OEA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/jud...

So, Rambus, don't fool yourselves as you hope to fool the public, the courts and your investors: you lost belowand your misconduct was found and ruled as such in 2002. That ruling of misconduct was noticed by CAFC in 2003 and affirmed:

"The trial court based its finding of exceptionality on: Rambus’s claim construction and infringement positions, the asserted fraud as inequitable conduct, and litigation misconduct. The court expressly found that each of these grounds individually supported finding this case exceptional. Because the award was not based solely on litigation misconduct, the court held that it was not necessary for Infineon to show a relationship between the requested fees and the litigation misconduct.

Given this court’s modifications to the appealed claim construction and reversal of the SDRAM fraud verdict, neither the claim construction nor the fraud provides a basis for the § 285 award. The sole remaining ground for awarding fees under § 285 is the alleged litigation misconduct. The district court found that Rambus’s misconduct included: failure to list documents on its privilege log, false and misleading testimony by Rambus executives, obfuscatory discovery responses, refusing to admit facts not genuinely at issue (e.g., date of Rambus’s JEDEC membership), and destroying documents before suit but after sending cease and desist letters to Infineon. Although arguing that the award of fees was improper under § 285, Rambus addresses only the claim construction and the fraud grounds. In sum, Rambus does not contest the district court’s holding of litigation misconduct.

Litigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior may suffice, by themselves, to make a case exceptional under § 285, Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1034, 61 USPQ2d 1470, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Indeed, the district court found that Rambus’s misconduct alone supported the determination that this case was exceptional. Rambus has not shown that this holding is clearly erroneous. In cases deemed exceptional only on the basis of litigation misconduct, however, the amount of the award must bear some relation to the extent of the misconduct. Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 831, 23 USPQ2d 1426, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1992), abrogated in part on other grounds by Markman, 52 F.3d 967; see also Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1553-54, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 1989)."

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/jud...

Independant of Rambus's inducement of EDVA's sister in NDCA to retry that issue to different findings and judgements, the ruling of their superior court stands to this day.....

So Rambus, prepare your case; you have standing and subject matter jurisdiction resides within the bench with which your appeal has been lodged. In the interest and for the benefit of the people of the United States in their much abused, maligned and belabored courts let justice be served.

The1stBA said...

Mr. Anomynous ~ You have GOT IT !!
Let TRUE JUSTICE PREVAI, AND it shall.

Thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

p.s............."Finz" ~ thank you for your non-negative song thingy as well! You ARE a nice person. It has just seemed to me that the almost always 'negative' in the past was ~ just that, 'negative'.
Ha ~ A song from long, long ago that I always like was: "Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative" - la di dah.
;-) BA

 
Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites