Tentative ruled by Jugde not a Per Se case but he is still thinking about it.
Perry talked about playing of IU Kim.
Perry wanted to play him in chief. They didnít play them but now our rebuttal would want him in. The cartel didnít play it Judge said. Perry said Judge said now Rambus can do that but Judge maybe have forgotten? Judge want the facts right. Judge said we went through IU KIMís designation but they didnít play it. Perry said they pump up Toshiba, Infineon and Samsung and wanted to put more things on Samsung. Judge said he wanted to see IU KIM designation tomorrow. Judge asked what is next. Perry wants to show Jurors as Cartel told they could not find some documents and that they must be destroyed and we have to challenge to prove that to the Jurors. Boxes and boxes of documents have been destroyed. Nissly is talking about Mr Brown. Perry said he testified what was missing. Perry said we will prove through him. Judge asked what is rule of rebuttal. Judge kind of lecture Perry. Perry donít side with Judge. Perry said those were for patent issues as Judge point to the opposite views of San Jose and Delaware ruling. Perry explain all Intelís documents have be produced and wants to prove they do have all the documents. Judge is talking to Nissly now. Nissly talking about spoliation of Allen Brew for crowld. Judge is saying he has never understand a patent document have things to do with this case. Perry knodding his head. Judge said focus is to Intel related documents weather they knew their strategy coming up with a lawsuit with anyone, difficult for him to fall outside of this case. If he is in this state iof mind what this all mean Judge continue talking. Judge said we know all the documents were discovered but how to rebuttal this. Perry said these documents do exists that involved his personal role as ceo of rambus, that summary chart did not come in. Judge asked why Rambus does not have one person to come in to say those documents exists. Perry said we do have a lawyer to do that. Judge said yes or no if there is such and such document with a date on it like 1998. Perry said yes. Judge keep talking stopping Perry. Judge said he have the issue then asked Next. Perry said we are not sure what their damage witness going to say and we not sure if they have one or two damages witness. Judge asked what your rebuttal. Perry said it depends what they will say. Judge said Alexandar have no damage at all because it didnít work here and didnít work there. Judge suggested to perry RDRAM was suitable for all segments of the market was front and center from day one. Why is that for rebuttal. Perry said they have 100 of witnesses and didnít know what they anticipated as they bring in witnesses we were not prepared. Eskovtiz will be here tomorrow explain that to you what the off the wall statement was from Alexandar. Nissly talked about Mr woo about news articles 8 exhibits and 5 was. Judge cut in and said this rebuttal thing is and I needed a little guidlence , just because you know about it I need more. Judge said to perry you need to prepare for that as Perry continue to say cartel use witness as a surprise to them on the subject matter. Judge keep talking about what rebuttal he can come up with. Heat sink, latency, narrow high way Ė he doesnít see if they called in apple, gateway or call all these people and we didnít know what this will happen or you never heard this before. Perry said he will come to tell you tomorrow. Judge is done and looking for the 49er game. Judge said Price you can probably go. Hynix lawyer talked about cartwright act or per se instruction. Judge said isolate the language with red line. HYNIX said it is based on casey, line 12. Hynix lawyer thinks it is not applicable to them on certain lines. Judge asked who was forced into this? Perry said that MU forced Samsung to join this. Expired agreement of the threat of ITC dumping charges of 2000 ending. Judge is thinking and cartel lawyers laughing. Judge said he get it and said who cares about the motive. Perry said they could have different motives and that is our case here. Judge said you donít want to make money? Judge asked where are the differential motives and where he direct the Jurors. Perry said MU not making it and HYNIX making their feet wet and havce different motives rather want rdram to succeed. Judge said getting rid of rdram is motive number one and once done they celebrated ddr victory as the second motive for the cartel Ėbig profit for them on ddr and end of day is to make money for them as Judge explains. Judge said Next. Judge said we donít have much time and Judge said you need to rough this out for me. Next is interference and Judge said this is an easy one and he could do that. Next is Cartwright act Judge said. Perry said 4 sentecnes are identical and the ABA Ė you should bear in mind, Judge said OK, that is in the ABA form that optional language Perry reads out to Judge. Judge said he will look at it. (News reporter can look at my report and not do any typing of their own to save time) (I tried to type everything heard but tough when they speak so fast but I got most of the conversation).
MU talked about what Judge Kramer talked about what rambus can recover from the statue of limitation. MU lawyer said antitrust is different from civil courts. Perry said it is true in federal court but he(Kramer) didnít follow that. Rambus other lawyer said the damages started used ddr sales as benchmark in 2001 as for rdram damages and no damage award for prior to 2001 Judge asked. Judge said if you form a conspiracy in 1998 and after may 5th 2000 and Jurors cannot ask for prior acts? Mu lawyers explains to Judge. MU lawyer said they are talking about two different thigns. After May 5th 2000 Judge said? (They are now talking about damages) (Starduster will give you better details about this) MU said it is not recoverable since act is before May 5 2000 and damage is after that date. Rambus lawyer said rambus can collect full damages. Judge looks at MU lawyers and explain about some bank robbery. Judge is looking at MU lawyers and asking them. (Looks like Judge not siding with MU lawyer on damages collection by Rambus just from my observations. MU lawyers working hard to minimize damages for rambus.) Judge understand what MU lawyer is saying now. What act before May 5th occurred as Judge asked MU lawyer shield. (Difficult for me to follow as they are rambling all over the place about time and facts on conspiracy) You might want to but the transcript for this after noon to get a better feel of what was said. I think Starduster like that idea also because they are talking a long time about damages that rambus can collect or collect nothing. Looks Like MU lawyers tell Judge Rambus cannot collect one penny for damages. (No wonder MUís sharedholders and analysts have no worry about this case. MU is confident Rambus should collect nothing- maybe that is why they never settled after Samsung settled.)
Judge on the other hand seems to be argruing with Micron lawyers so from this I conclude he is not siding with the cartel on damages. I think Judge thinks rambus have a case to collect for damages . They are talking if Jurors able to judge what Intel could have done or changed their mind and how things will be decided. MU lawyer seem frustrated and debate like hell with Judge. Rambus lawyers not saying a word because Judge and MU lawyer has been talking for some time. Perry said any loss cause by Inte; roadmap change in 1999 if it occur. Summer of 2000 by adding an sdram for p4 chipset to be launch the following year. Judge said you know what Iím going with this and what Rambus to lose their royalty and what was the first act. Perry said first act is has to do with which is dellís request for lower price projection or will change their roadmap for year 2000 and the cartel not going to accept Dellís request so they change their roadmap. The supplier uniformly told dell to not support rdram as perry explains to Judge. Judge asked MU lawyer what did you put in about Intel. Judge said you said Jurors unable to tell that. MU lawyer said rambus can only collect act after May 5th 2000. Acts before May 5th 2000 is not liability to collect damages? Very strange language which hard to hear as he speaks very fast. Nissly said Rambus evidence is proving only from this email from dell in May 2000 talked about request for certain price. Judge said cartwright act of limitation. MU said there are differences after the statue. Burden of proof and rambus must show damage in the period of limitation. Perry said it is the defense. (I think for antitrust cases there should never be a statue of limitation because the acts are concealed and by the time you find out it could have already passed certain dates- who made such laws and rules anyway? Those who put in such rujles should be fired. They are the dumbest human beings on this planet, this is what I called dumb people being appointed to government posts- you people voted for them- next time you vote for anyone Ė ask them are they dumb- if they say they would have limitation for antitrust matters then you better throw them into the pits) ===========================================================================
Casey instruction for per se as Perry said but Judge thinks this is not a Per se price fixing model as he tentatively ruled. Judge ssaid he donít see this as a Per Se case but a unique case for sure a