None of what you posted had anything to do with MY POST...which clearly stated that I didn't care about RDRAM failing or not in the market. RDRAM wasn't where the value was when I got involved...(it had already essentially failed due [in part] to later admitted illegal industry collusion).
While I could argue with you over the 10-year later credibility of the Intel witnesses ad nauseum over the actual documented proof of Intel management's decisions...the long and short of it is that it doesn't currently matter. Rambus lost the trial. The jury decided to discount the written proof of Intel management's decisions/thought processes in favor of the potentially faulty testimony of a junior engineer. I think if you talk to most neutral legal experts...you will find that the DOCUMENTED email proof detailing management's strategy (and its change over time) will typically be assigned much higher credibility in 99.9% of jury trials over that of live (emotion-driven?) testimony of the dated memory of a relatively junior line personnel.