RMBS - Rambus Inc. (NASDAQ:RMBS)

Amee

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
8/11/02
Messaggi
1.927
Punti reazioni
136
Stasera escono i dati del trimestre.
1) Aspetto che battano le stime come intel per beccarmi un - 6%
2) Aspetto che siano pari alle stime o inferiori per beccarmi un -10%

I miei circuiti non riescono ad elaborare il problema.
Accettasi consigli

Amee
 

maurj

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
25/1/00
Messaggi
5.731
Punti reazioni
254
Di solito non mi rischio le trimestrali.

Comunque è un buon titolo

Comunque auguri
 

Amee

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
8/11/02
Messaggi
1.927
Punti reazioni
136
Scritto da maurj
Di solito non mi rischio le trimestrali.

Comunque è un buon titolo

Comunque auguri

Ha battuto le stime, recuperato in AH.
Boh vediamo oggi come butta

Amee
 

Amee

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
8/11/02
Messaggi
1.927
Punti reazioni
136
Che azz è successo ??

Amee
 

Allegati

  • screenhunter_003.jpg
    screenhunter_003.jpg
    53,1 KB · Visite: 442

Amee

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
8/11/02
Messaggi
1.927
Punti reazioni
136
Oggi invece anche.
MA PERCHEEEEE'' ???????

Amee
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
RAMBUS HEARING UPDATE
04/27/04

A brief update on the hearing today inRichmond, Virginia.

The start of the trial has been moved to September 27th.
Judge Payne has every intention of allowing the piercing of Rambus’ attorney client privilege beyond the parameters of the first trial. An order is expected late this week or early next week. The trial is delayed because Judge Payne assumes Rambus will seek relief from the federal circuit (CAFC).
The judge commented that Rambus would appeal the decision though he is skeptical that they would actually prevail.
The issue of Infineon’s spoliation (document destruction) is also yet to be ruled upon. Rambus presented numerous documents that third parties produced in the FTC trial that Infineon should have produced in the first trial. Infineon still has not produced these documents and it greatly suggests Infineon has destroyed evidence material to Rambus’ defense.
There also was no ruling or argument on the 17200 issue though by all appearances that will continue to be a part of the case. Oral argument on the 17200 issue occurred previously.
Judge Payne commented that he would carry the issue of document destruction out to its full conclusion this time. He actually commented that he would have continued the trial the first time had he been aware of the breath of spoliation
Judge Payne also instructed Infineon to request documents and testimony from the FTC. Infineon was instructed to tell the FTC that Judge Payne wants testimony and depositions of Rambus employees and former employees for his proceedings. Rambus’ request for similar witness testimony from the FTC was met with “just depose them again”. This issue has to do Infineon not being a party to the FTC proceedings.
Infineon wants as remedy an anti-suit injunction and a remedy for spoliation.

It remains to be seen whether Judge Payne is as concerned with missing documents from the first trial from Infineon as he is with Rambus’. From his performance we are also rather convinced that though he may request evidence from the FTC, he has little interest in considering the findings of facts and conclusion of law that resulted from that trial. Sadly, that observation is simply based on the fact that the former could damage Rambus whereas the latter would favor Rambus. In our view, the reality of Rambus as litigant before Judge Payne is about that stark.

We can only await an order to be issued from this one-sided-ruling judge; but based on the proceedings we anticipate the following:

Judge Payne will pierce additional Rambus attorney/client documents.
Judge Payne will allow Infineon to introduce additional evidence or testimony from the FTC proceedings.
Judge Payne will ignore the decision of the FTC Administrative Law Judge resulting from that very testimony.
Rambus will appeal the attorney/client decision and most likely other elements of the pre-trial orders related to the introduction of California unfair competition (17200) statute in the remand.
Orders detrimental to Infineon will be minimal if any.

The reason we can offer such a one-sided view of what we “expect” the Judge will do in this case, is because his performance up to now has been one-sided to many observers. From rulings on evidence to be allowed or disallowed, numerous motions, opinions and orders to date, and the Judge’s general courtroom statements, Judge Payne has the appearance of simply disfavoring Rambus as a litigant in his courtroom. How such a one-sided performance will be viewed in the anticipated appeal to the CAFC remains to be seen.

We believe the case in Virginia is proceeding as more of a repeat of the first trial’s fraud allegations and a rehash of the FTC case than it is an infringement trial. The Judge’s seeming disdain for Rambus’ document retention policy and for Rambus’ witness performance in the first trial has been commented on in more than one occasion.

We view receiving a positive result from the Richmond courtroom, without intervention from the CAFC as unlikely. In our view, the Judge’s rulings thus far have the effect of placing Rambus once again in the role of defendant more so than plaintiff of an infringement suit. In addition numerous evidentiary motions have the effect of tipping the evidence of the “facts available” in Infineon’s favor.

We do believe however that Rambus is correct in the view that the limited remand has strayed far from the course intended by the appellate court. Judge Payne seems bent on forcing the appellate court to rule on the path of these proceedings otherwise Rambus can expect nothing but one sided trouble from his courtroom.

While we are rather dismayed by the proceedings in Richmond, we believe that Rambus ultimately will prevail. Unfortunately the specter of dealing with appellate issues from Virginia seems to be the path to expect. Whether those appeals are successful prior to the September start of the trial is the main question in our minds. If the case proceeds as the judge intends, expect another long road to justice from this particular venue.

We believe the situation is fairly simple in the big picture. Rambus has already been cleared of four findings of fraud from Payne’s court. Every claim construction decision Judge Payne made in the first trail was against Rambus. Every claim construction error he made was reversed in Rambus’ favor. Rambus has already been tried for “unfair competition” under a lower burden of proof standard than fraud at the FTC. In that trial the ethereal words of “good faith” and “unfair” were put to bed and dismissed by the FTC’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Despite now being couched under a state law statute, the issues before the FTC and related to California 17200 are actually the same subject matter.

Although the favorable ALJ initial decision is being appealed back to the full commission, the facts of the initial decision will allow Rambus to prevail in the long run in our view. What is more disturbing is what we would have expected Judge Payne to do if the ALJ decision was actually adverse to Rambus. He would likely give it as much weight as the law would allow. In our view, that simple dichotomy raises serious questions about the overall fairness of the judge. We only hope that sentiment is shared by the appellate court in reviewing the serpentine course of this case remanded for infringement consistent with the new claim definitions.

Ironically, we view the prospects in the California court, where these vague California 17200 statutes are properly tried, as much more favorable for a near term positive resolution. We believe the Judge there may actually rule summary judgment of infringement in Rambus’ favor.

We have had numerous questions about our 2007 estimate of Rambus. Obviously a significant portion of the estimate depends on favorable resolution of litigation. We do expect Rambus to ultimately prevail in its litigation. To that extent we stand by the analysis presented with the litigation caveats present. To the extent that a favorable litigation result would be delayed, obviously the timing of receiving revenue associated with industry payments of DRAM royalties would be similarly impacted.

Hager Technology Research/CurrinResearch Update


Today's In Play (28-Apr-04)
10:13 RMBS Rambus downgrade details (20.96 -0.15)
AmTech downgrades RMBS to Hold from Buy based on the following factors: 1) continued delays in the Infineon infringement trial in Virginia, which they think is likely go against RMBS and stretch out the time frame for RMBS getting paid to beyond 2006; 2) DRAM "holdouts" (IFX, MU, Hynix) have no incentive to settle, with legal costs largely sunk and the possibility that damages could be limited to royalties; 3) the DOJ investigation has no direct linkage to RMBS; and most importantly 4) there is a big question-mark as to whether RMBS collects royalties on DDR2, the emerging new standard. Target is $19.
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
in breve: tutta la premessa su cui si basa l'investimento in Rambus, ovvero la raccolta delle royalties sui chip DDR prodotti da terzi, va a farsi fottere dato che la lunga battaglia legale che sembrava avesse avuto esito positivo pochi mesi fa e' stata ulteriormente dilazionata nel tempo, col risultato che nel frattempo Rambus continua a "raccogliere" assolutamente nulla, e quando finalmente la nebbia si diradera', sara' ormai passato tanto di quel tempo (la causa dura da 2 anni) che con buona probabilita' le memorie per computer saranno completamente diverse da oggi (sappiamo bene come si evolve velocemente l'hardware)
 

Amee

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
8/11/02
Messaggi
1.927
Punti reazioni
136
Scritto da Flex
in breve: tutta la premessa su cui si basa l'investimento in Rambus, ovvero la raccolta delle royalties sui chip DDR prodotti da terzi, va a farsi fottere dato che la lunga battaglia legale che sembrava avesse avuto esito positivo pochi mesi fa e' stata ulteriormente dilazionata nel tempo, col risultato che nel frattempo Rambus continua a "raccogliere" assolutamente nulla, e quando finalmente la nebbia si diradera', sara' ormai passato tanto di quel tempo (la causa dura da 2 anni) che con buona probabilita' le memorie per computer saranno completamente diverse da oggi (sappiamo bene come si evolve velocemente l'hardware)

Grazie.:mad:

Ame
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
visto che ha perso il 30% in due giorni aspetterei a questo punto settimana prossima e poi le venderei, con la speranza di un piccolo rimbalzo magari di un paio di dollari (venderei in ogni caso, qualsiasi cosa fara' nei prossimi giorni)
 

Amee

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
8/11/02
Messaggi
1.927
Punti reazioni
136
Scritto da Flex
visto che ha perso il 30% in due giorni aspetterei a questo punto settimana prossima e poi le venderei, con la speranza di un piccolo rimbalzo magari di un paio di dollari (venderei in ogni caso, qualsiasi cosa fara' nei prossimi giorni)

Visto che sei così informato approfitto per chiederti questo: di contraccolpo dovrebbero salire gli altri produttori che non dovrebbero pagare le royalties.
Ma io non ho visto nessun balzo o sbaglio ?
Come mai ?

Amee
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
ma va, scherzi.... e' una goccia nel mare per una Micron o roba simile !

Comunque il sito FredHager (che e' forte sostenitore di questo titolo e lo ha inserito nel suo portafoglio in quantita' industriali gia' da qualche anno) non vende, ci crede ancora e tiene duro.
Chissa' magari nel lungo periodo (come investe Hager) ha ragione, ma nel medio la vedo grigia per il titolo.
Comunque fate voi un po' di analisi tecnica, io non son capace...
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
ah e inoltre niente di piu' facile che il Giudice Payne abbia uno short aperto su Rambus ! :)
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
Rambus Suffers On Delay in Trial
04/30/04

We updated the latest developments in the litigation saga of Rambus earlier this week. In response to inquiries we would like to review our position on the stock in the portfolios.

We remain quite bullish on the long term performance of this stock. The events of this week essentially did nothing to Rambus’ long term prospects in our view. However the impact of the delay in the trial led to a downgrade of the stock by American Technology Research, one of the few analyst firms that cover Rambus. To the extent that a litigation delay could impact the 2004 outlook or bleed into the appellate calendar of 2005 we understand his cautious approach. To the extent that he downgraded a stock already well off its high, it was a typical, useless, analyst rating change. Combined with the news of the trial in Virginia being delayed until this fall the downgrade helped the stock continue to suffer through the week.

We also are displeased with the amount of selling being done by insiders at the company. With continued legal delay and a lack of certainty in the investor community about Rambus’ litigation prospects, the selling sends a bad signal to the marketplace and to shareholders. We hope management recognizes this situation for what it is despite their stated diversification goals.

While we recognize this week’s events were not ideal for the near term, the events actually did not change the status as we have been reporting. All along we have said the case was likely headed for some necessary appellate activity because of the continued fraud and fairness elements being allowed in by Judge Payne. Judge Payne delayed the trial in anticipation of the appeals Rambus would file from decisions he plans to issue shortly. In a manner uncharacteristic of Payne, he has issued his typical rapid fire ruling immediately after argument because he knows it will be scrutinized.

All the pre-trial activity is expected to be over in Virginia by early June. The judge did nothing to change the view that he is no fan of Rambus, though his demeanor simply caused us to express our displeasure in a more overt way in the mid week update. When we reported:

The issue of Infineon’s spoliation (document destruction) is also yet to be ruled upon. Rambus presented numerous documents that third parties produced in the FTC trial that Infineon should have produced in the first trial. Infineon still has not produced these documents and it greatly suggests Infineon has destroyed evidence material to Rambus’ defense.

It remains to be seen whether Judge Payne is as concerned with missing documents from the first trial from Infineon as he is with Rambus’.

The interesting aspect this evidence is that Judge Payne seemed rather disinterested in the whole Rambus presentation of Infineon’s spoliation. However, it is worth noting specific documents were produced that not only highlighted Infineon’s lack of compliance with discovery but also seem to highlight contradictions to testimony from Infineon in the first trial. These documents point to Infineon’s early knowledge and concern about Rambus patents and discussions with third parties of same. This is really nothing new as industry-wide knowledge of Rambus’ patents and concerns about those patents reach is within the findings of the FTC’s Administrative Law Judge.

While we believe the situation in Virginia is indeed uncertain in front of a seemingly adversarial judge, we also believe the facts, law and significant ammunition from the previous CAFC and FTC initial decision forecasts an end result soundly in the favor of Rambus. We will continue to follow the maneuvering and report our views of the developments.

We maintain our position in the portfolio and believe the latest attack on the share price is a buying opportunity for long term appreciation.

On Rambus LEAPS

As a preview of our LEAPS strategy it has been our intention to roll the present LEAPS position into new 2007 LEAPS when they issue. Of course our position on that could change if warranted. The current LEAPS obviously took a hit in the recent decline. However we believe the upside potential of favorable results in California or in a negotiated settlement prior to this year’s end (or before the September trial begins with Infineon) outweighs the risk adverse approach of abandoning our 2005 LEAPS position now.

Given the dreadfully slow pace that litigation proceeds to resolution, we recognize there is appreciable risk in relying on favorable resolutions this year. At the same time, we recognize that this week’s turmoil did little if anything to alter the long term landscape that existed before the week began. The events especially do little to alter the prospects in the California venue.

Did the Whole Market Have A Trial Delay?

When one reviews the tape for the market this week, it is easy to see that Rambus was not the only stock headed lower. As we stated in the previous report, the combination of raise of interest rate “concerns” and developments in Iraq have taken the wind out of the market’s sails for the time being.

Quite simply we believe this is a temporary situation. We believe this market is early in the stages of the first bull market run of this century. Many companies have reported fine numbers and excellent guidance and yet were still unable to avoid sell-offs consistent with a general market decline. This “baby with the bath water” mentality will not last long in our view and we expect some of the companies in the portfolios that have reported strong business results to bounce back even stronger.
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
(C) Hager Technology Research/CurrinResearch
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
Spike a +14% per RMBS, ancora nessuna notizia.
 

Flex

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
12/3/01
Messaggi
520
Punti reazioni
22
13:57 RMBS Rambus: Delay in Infineon trial a 'very big positive'; says making strong progress in collecting on patents -- DJ (20.70 +2.45) -- Update --



13:55 RMBS Rambus spikes intraday, 'patent' chatter cited (20.50 +2.25)
 

Adsx

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
2/4/03
Messaggi
1.280
Punti reazioni
46
* Memoria di RMBS Rambus da usare in Playstation 3 - xbitlabs.com (21.87)
xbitlabs.com nota che le caratteristiche dell'unità di elaborazione dei grafici di PlayStation 3 hanno rivelato sul fotoricettore e detto esso sembra che l'unità di elaborazione visiva fonda le architetture presenti e future della generazione del NVDA ed abbia regolatore incorporato di memoria che sostiene il DRAM del XDR del RMBS. Secondo il luogo, l'elettronica di consumatore principale numerosa co's, quali SONY o Panasonic, ad esempio adotterebbero la memoria del XDR del RMBS per i loro dispositivi, compreso la sezione comandi di PlayStation 3 del SONY e Panasonic digitale TV-SI regola. Il luogo dice che in più determinata rete co's inoltre si interessa a XDR e che un altro mkt dell'obiettivo per la memoria del XDR può essere schede dei grafici, secondo i rapporti più presto questo anno
 

Amee

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
8/11/02
Messaggi
1.927
Punti reazioni
136
Che suonata!
perde più di 2 dollari in ah.
Deve aver dato dei dati pessimi, porca p.....!

Amee
 

Leone70

Nuovo Utente
Registrato
4/5/04
Messaggi
545
Punti reazioni
38
Amee ha scritto:
Che suonata!
perde più di 2 dollari in ah.
Deve aver dato dei dati pessimi, porca p.....!

Amee


Scusa,,,ma non sei short,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
KO!