Como se combate o populismo? "Com eleições", responde Fukuyama

[bullsista]

a tua 1ª compra foi a quanto?

[alce]

... e ontem sem saber bem porquê vejo-a a descer 10% e numa de especulação reforço com mais 2/3 do investimento anterior.
Hoje já vendi as compradas ontem, o que me dá uma boa margem de manobra.
Como tal vou deixar correr e pode ser que vá aos 14,70/14,80.

A ver vamos.
BN

[bullsista]

sim... hoje ainda tentei entrar a 12 e já vai nos 13,4. é um título para quem tem coração e não tem amor ao dinheiro. depois de um mês debaixo de fogo por causa das stock options e de acusações de monopólio, a notícia que saiu ontem é um balão de oxigénio... aqui não vale a pena utilizar-se qualquer tipo de análise. tem-se é de estar atento às notícias que vão aparecendo e cruzr os dedos.

[novo_nisto]

Eu estou dentro mas não sei se não preferia estar de fora

Para mim é bizarro mas coloquei o stop loss 15% abaixo do valor de entrada. Digamos que foi a razão da AT a sobrepor-se ao medo de poder perder 15%.

Acabei por escapar ontem à descida mas é um facto que esta Rambus esfranga-lha os nervos de um tipo

[alce]

... esta acção é impressionante.
Ontem desce 10 %.
Hoje arranca e já vai com + 15%.

Não há corações (nem stops)que resistam.

BN

[Keyser Soze]

Rambus Loses Ruling, Delaying Hynix Patent Infringement Case

By Joel Rosenblatt

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Rambus Inc. lost a ruling in its patent dispute with Hynix Semiconductor Inc., delaying the final phase of the case until the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issues its penalty in an antitrust lawsuit against Rambus.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose, California, said yesterday that the third trial in the Hynix case, originally set to begin next month, will take place no sooner than February. The FTC ruled Aug. 2 that Rambus engaged in ``deceptive conduct'' in order to control patents for high-speed computer memory chips.

Rambus, a computer-chip designer based in Los Altos, California, has sued memory makers including Hynix, Samsung Electronics Co. and Nanya Technology Corp. for infringing its patents. In the final phase of the patent case, Hynix says it will use the same arguments presented by the FTC: that Rambus attended meetings of a memory-chip standards panel without disclosing the patents it would later enforce.

Whyte's ruling ``goes a long way towards supporting our claim that Rambus is not entitled to enforce these patents based on the antitrust laws,'' Ken Nissly, a lawyer representing Hynix, said in an interview late yesterday. The rulings issued by Whyte and the FTC ``present significant obstacles'' to Rambus enforcing its patents against the entire chip industry, Nissly said.

A federal jury in April awarded Rambus $307 million in its dispute with Ichon, South Korea-based Hynix, the world's second- largest memory chipmaker. Jurors agreed with Rambus's claim that Hynix infringed patents covering fundamental aspects of dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, the main type of memory used in computers. Whyte later reduced the award to $133.4 million.

`Encourage Settlement'

Robert Kramer, Rambus's acting general counsel, said in an e-mailed statement that Whyte delayed the final trial to encourage a settlement. It will be ``Hynix's burden to establish'' which of the FTC's findings it can use to defend against Rambus's infringement claims, he said.

In the FTC case, the commission found that Rambus monopolized four aspects of an industry standard for memory chips. The ruling threatens to reduce Rambus's ability to collect royalties that provide 80 percent of its revenue. Rambus has said it will appeal the decision. The FTC hasn't said when it will announce the penalty.

Rambus and the FTC staff must submit arguments by Sept. 15 on whether the company should be barred from getting royalties on memory chips that comply with the standard.

Rambus has also filed antitrust lawsuits in state court against Hynix, South Korea's Samsung and Micron Technology Inc. claiming the companies conspired to fix prices and keep Rambus out of the memory chip market.

Price-Fixing

Hynix, Samsung, Germany's Infineon and Japan's Elpida Memory Inc. have pleaded guilty to U.S. criminal charges for price- fixing. Boise, Idaho-based Micron, the biggest DRAM maker in the U.S., wasn't charged after it cooperated with prosecutors.

``If parts of the FTC's decision are taken as fact, it will hurt Rambus's odds on prevailing'' in its patent case against Hynix, said Michael Cohen, a director of research at San Diego- based Pacific American Securities. Cohen said he owns 500 Rambus shares and has a ``buy'' rating on the stock.

Rambus investors are afraid Whyte's decision might cause the company to ``cut a cheap deal'' with Hynix or any of the memory manufacturers it has sued, ``as opposed to pushing forward with its antitrust case in California,'' Cohen said.

The FTC penalty ``should not affect Hynix's past-due damages for its infringement of Rambus's patents,'' Rambus's Kramer said in an e-mailed statement. Whyte acknowledged in his order that the FTC penalty will not resolve the companies' dispute over double data rate 2, or DDR2, chips, Kramer said.

Given the DDR2 exemption and the antitrust case pending in state court in San Francisco, ``Rambus has strong reasons to believe it will be fairly compensated for its inventions,'' Kramer said.

The case is Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 00-cv- 20905, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). The FTC case is In the Matter of Rambus Inc., Docket No. 9302, U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: August 23, 2006 00:02 EDT

[Shenron]

Obrigado Ulisses. Tomarei em conta esse conselho.

[Shenron]

Já agora a possível justificação para isto, ou o poder do e-mail.

"Chip technology designer Rambus may have just gotten a big leg up in a legal battle against chipmakers it has accused of fixing prices in the memory chip market. A cache of newly released e-mail messages shows those companies shared information on pricing and suggests their actions were motivated by a desire to shove a Rambus-backed technology out of the market.
The e-mails are contained in documents that have previously been sealed under a protective order. Rambus prevailed in convincing the judge to unseal the documents, and the protective order expired May 31. Rambus provided copies of the documents to BusinessWeek Online.

DISPUTES REMAIN. Micron Technology (MU) Samsung, and Hynix Semiconductor have already admitted to conspiracy to fix prices on computer memory chips during a period starting in 1999 and ending in 2002. The admission followed a a four-year investigation by the Justice Dept. that resulted in more than $700 million in fines, and jail terms for several executives of those companies.

But in 2004, Rambus (RMBS) filed its own antitrust lawsuit in a California state court in San Francisco. The suit alleges that Micron, Hynix, Samsung, and Infineon Technologies (IFX) colluded to fix prices on computer memory chips from 1999 to 2002 in such a way as to drive a type of chip on which Rambus held many patents out of the market. Rambus has since settled all outstanding legal disputes with Infineon, but the fight with the other three is pending.

The companies worked together to improve prices on a competing type of memory chip in order to discourage computer makers like Dell (DELL), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Gateway (GTW), and others from adopting a type of memory known as Direct Rambus Dynamic Random Access Memory (RDRAM) in their computers, and instead favor a competing type of memory chip known as Double Data Rate DRAM (DDR-DRAM).

E-MAIL TRAIL. One e-mail, dated June 5, 2001, from Micron Vice-President Linda Turner to other Micron employees was in response to worries about prices on DDR-DRAM that had been falling. "No problem!," Turner wrote. "We want DDR to explode in the marketplace so have actually been requesting Infineon, Samsung, and Hynix to lower their DDR pricing to help it become a standard (and drive Rambus away completely)."

An earlier e-mail, dated Feb. 16, 2000, from Micron sales representative Tom Addie to a Micron sales manager identified as "mgrant," suggests that Micron was worried about PC makers showing strong interest in the Rambus-designed RDRAM memory chips, which were being manufactured by Samsung.

Addie wrote in the e-mail that someone at Samsung had told him that Compaq was "pressing hard for Rambus support" based on "success that Dell was having" using the chips in its products. A later email to Addie, dated May 22, from a Micron account manager named Bill Lauer asks if Addie can "check in with your Sammy contacts," referring to Samsung.

STRONG COUNTEROFFENSIVE. Yet another e-mail dated July 3, 2001, this one between employees of Hynix, discusses setting up a meeting with Micron Vice-President Mike Sadler "to discuss with us measures to stabilize the market price."

The chip companies have repeatedly sought to portray the price-fixing to which they admitted in the Justice Dept. antitrust investigation as being unrelated to the matters in the Rambus case. Micron released a written statement portraying the Rambus technology as having failed in the marketplace on its own technical and other merits relative to other chip technologies available at the time.

"The Rambus lawsuit relates to the failure of RDRAM in the marketplace, which is unrelated to the Department of Justice's price-fixing investigation,” Micron says. "Rambus has attempted to bootstrap the DOJ price-fixing investigation into a supposed boycott of Rambus DRAM. Rambus DRAM was a failure in the marketplace because it was too costly and any performance differentials were not sufficient to justify the inherit cost differences." Messages left for attorneys representing Hynix were not immediately returned.

ROYALTY-RESISTANT. At the heart of the cases are efforts by Rambus and other companies to persuade computer makers of the merits of competing memory chip technologies. Rambus, with help from Intel (INTC), had sought to nudge the computer industry to adopt RDRAM as the new standard for personal computers and servers. RDRAM chips were supposedly much faster than memory chips used at the time. The trick was convincing the memory chip companies to go along with it.

That wasn't easy. Chipmakers -- Micron especially -- hated RDRAM for one reason: It required paying stiff royalties and licensing fees to Rambus. Their DDR-DRAM wasn't as fast, but didn’t have expensive Rambus patents tied to it.

What followed was nothing short of World War III in the memory chip world, and in fact, the battle isn't over yet. When RDRAM failed to succeed in the market, Rambus asserted fundamental patents on DDR-DRAM. The result was a mind-bendingly complex series of lawsuits filed in venues as disparate as Virginia and Italy, in which Rambus has sought to enforce patents on DDR-DRAM, while the chip companies sought to have those patents invalidated.

RECORD FINES. In the investigation launched in June, 2002, the Justice Dept. has already levied $731 million in fines against other memory chip manufacturers, including Infineon, South Korea’s Samsung, and Hynix Semiconductor, and also against Japan’s Elpida. The collective fines are the largest ever handed down by the U.S. government in an antitrust case.

The investigation has also resulted in jail time for executives from all four companies, the most recent being four Hynix executives who agreed to terms ranging from five to eight months in jail, and one Micron executive who pled guilty to tampering with evidence.

In its statement, Micron reiterated a commitment to cooperate with the Justice Dept.'s ongoing investigation, in which it is participating under a corporate leniency program. Micron has said it doesn't expect any prosecution, fines, or penalties related to the Justice Dept.'s case. The exact provisions of that agreement have not been disclosed, nor has the full scope of Micron's role in the conspiracy been revealed."

in http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technolog ... 714385.htm

[Ulisses Pereira]

Sim, é bem possível.

Eu acredito que a tendência da Rambus é claramente descendente, por todos os aspectos técnicos e fundamentais. O que eu gostaria de frisar é que, quando a Rambus está numa tendência descendente, depois de quedas consecutivas geralmente produz ressaltos muito poderosos que duram entre 1 a 3 dias, com velas brancas gigantes, antes de retomar a sua tendência descendente.

Por isso, se fores tentar apanhar o comboio, recorda-te que por norma o ciclo de vida destes ressaltos é limitado.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[Shenron]

Vai uma opinião, mais do que um palpite?
As quedas têm sido fortes, e ontem um gap down dá origem hoje a um gap up...

Podemos estar perante uma reversal island, sujeita a confirmação, bla bla...

Algum comentário?