Portugal enfrenta 15 países na corrida à gigafábrica de IA

[AC Investor Blog]

Continuo longo e forte. Com a resistência quebrada o objectivo passa agora a ser os $22.20 para depois ir aos $26.41.

[AC Investor Blog]

comenta-se nos foruns internacionais a possibilidade de um acordo com a samsung acontecer neste fim-de-semana, daí a continuação da subida e o volume
das opçoes com maturidade em Dezembro.

JDSU - Contraria a tendência do mercado.

[AC Investor Blog]

Explodiu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Este movimento ainda é muito prematuro comparado com o que daqui para a frente pode acontecer..... tamos a um mês da grande decisão....

[pedro200]

Explodiu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MoneyChaos]

Parece estar numa clara tendencia lateral, achas que há força no mercado actual para a romper?

[AC Investor Blog]

3 Razões Para vender Rambus.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/11/13/3-reasons-to-sell-rambus-today.aspx[/url]

Por acaso, também já vi isso, os gajos não sabem o que fazem, andam como a acção ourados á procura de tendência Fiz a minha análise técnica á Rambus no Blog, no entanto deixo-vos aqui o gráfico dela. OBV está muito forte , e claramente mostra como os fundos andam a meter lá pasta.......depois á que mandar para fora noticias destas para amialhar mais dela a preços baixos.... só no dia 30 o Fidelity Mt Vernon Street Trust - Fidelity Growth Company Fund comprou 9,083,000

[MoneyChaos]

3 Razões Para vender Rambus.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/11/13/3-reasons-to-sell-rambus-today.aspx[/url]

[AC Investor Blog]

Ainda ontem reforçei nela depois do acordo feito entre a Intel e a AMD. Á várias semanas que se fala do mesmo entre a Rambus , Samsung e Hynix, parece que muitos pensam já o mesmo, fica o link...

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... today.aspx

[AC Investor Blog]

Vamos ver até onde ela irá. O volume de hoje é estrondoso face á média diária.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp ... id=8030426

[pasil74]

eu vendi as minhas a 18,65 agora espero uma correcção para voltar a comprar.

[AC Investor Blog]

+10% hoje

100% em 2 meses - Avé Rambus !!!!

[jbraven]

17,60......

Tinha pensado reforçar ao preço de abertura, mas a estes valores é arriscado.

A propósito, alguém sabe se é possível (e como) dar ordens no pre-market e como é que essas ordens são processadas? Desde já o meu obrigado.

Abraços,

JB

[rabat]

Hoje parece que promete No pre-market vai com 26%

Como é que eu consigo ter está informação?Qual é o site? Obrigado pelas dicas

Aqui, por exemplo:

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/rmbs

Abraços,

JB

Obrigado

[jbraven]

Já vai nos 16,95. Pelo andar da carruagem abre acima dos 17.

[jbraven]

Hoje parece que promete No pre-market vai com 26%

Como é que eu consigo ter está informação?Qual é o site? Obrigado pelas dicas

Aqui, por exemplo:

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/rmbs

Abraços,

JB

[rabat]

Hoje parece que promete No pre-market vai com 26%

Como é que eu consigo ter está informação?Qual é o site? Obrigado pelas dicas

[hmsferreira]

alguém tem opiniões formadas sobre a próxima resistência?

[jbraven]

Hoje parece que promete No pre-market vai com 26%

Acho que tem a ver com a notícia da cedência perante a UE para evitar a multa por comportamento antitrust.

Abraços,

JB

[pasil74]

Hoje parece que promete No pre-market vai com 26%

[AC Investor Blog]

A Rambus pode subir hoje entre 10 e 20%, a decisão do trial saiu-lhe favorável !!!

Judge Kramer - June 1st
Here are my notes from today’s court session. Please remember these notes are rough, imperfect, and subject to my hazy memory.

The courtroom was rather full today. The cartel had Powers, Price, Steiger, Nissly, Brown, and Allen. Rambus had Gregory, Cotchett, Soloff, and Perry.

Judge Kramer first spoke about Intel’s motion to seal the agreement and a couple other documents. The hearing is set for June 29th, but Judge Kramer was skeptical about Intel’s request. Regarding the Intel agreement, Judge Kramer said, “That conceivably could be a major piece of evidence and I don’t know how we could seal that.”

Mr. Soloff of Rambus then continued from last months arguments on why Delaware should not be preclusive. He said the issues aren’t identical, the relief requested doesn’t apply, and in any event, Hynix and Samsung would not be entitled because they weren’t a party to the Delaware litigation. Soloff said there is absolutely no evidence Rambus reasonably anticipated AT litigation, even if it did anticipate patent litigation. He also said the Delaware standard of “reasonably foreseeable” isn’t the same as California’s requirement of “ongoing or clearly foreseeable” litigation.

Mr. Soloff then asked Judge Kramer how much detail he wanted regarding why the manufacturers’ argument didn’t hold water. The judge told him to lay out his whole argument and not worry about wasting time because Soloff may not just be arguing to Kramer, but to the appeals court. Kramer joked, “Don’t worry about it. I work for the government. I’m here to help.” So Soloff spent any hour or so arguing why the claimed spoliation wasn’t relevant to this case and how any findings from Robinson would only apply to patent litigation and not AT claims. Soloff said the manufacturers’ motion is an attempt to deny Rambus due process, the specifics need to be decided in track 2, and the jury should be allowed to consider and decide the facts.

Soloff said Hynix’s claim that the Delaware ruling takes precedence because it was “last in time” is incorrect. Judge Whyte actually reconsidered his spoliation ruling after the Delaware decision and re-iterated that Rambus had not spoliated. Therefore, Judge Whyte is actually “last in time.” Soloff said Hynix “cannot undue its loss” using Delaware as a basis because Hynix was not a party to that litigation.

Soloff said Samsung’s 17200 fraud claims have already been tried by Judge Whyte. He said Judge Whyte said the 17200 ruling is not subject to the stay and a decision should be forthcoming. Soloff said Samsung can’t rely upon Robinson’s ruling to show that Rambus committed fraud. If Judge Whyte’s ruling doesn’t come in time, Soloff said Judge Kramer would have to independently decide that issue.

Mr. Price of Micron then had a chance to respond. He said the December 1998 to December 1999 timeframe where Robinson found spoliation in the patent case is a critical timeframe in the AT case also. He said Robinson found “egregious, bad faith destruction of documents.” He said Rambus’ policy was to “throw away everything.”

Judge Kramer paid close attention to Price and questioned him a couple times when he exaggerated the findings and applicability of Judge Robinson’s ruling. When pressed to point to the facts in Robinson’s ruling that backed up Price’s claim, Price once had to say, “She didn’t specifically say that.” He tried to save his argument by saying that one had to infer from her ruling what he said. He said it follows from her ruling and would take an unusual reading to find otherwise. Judge Kramer disagreed and said, “Why would it take an unusual reading?” Price said she found a plan in place to litigate in 1998. Price said it wasn’t restricted to anticipation of patent litigation. Price said Robinson found that litigation was inevitable with Micron in 1998, so any standard difference between federal and state law isn’t relevant.

Price said if Micron doesn’t get CE, “The evidence of the critical time period goes to the motive and scheme. We will argue that Rambus destroyed documents to make an advantage. We are entitled to let the jury know they violated their duty to preserve. A judge found a duty preserve, so we can get instructions to the jury that goes to motive and intent.” Judge Kramer asked, “Would motive and plan be material to any issue in this case?” Price said the issue is the defendants’ ability to put on a fair presentation of the evidence. Judge Kramer hypothesized that the CE could be limited to the fact that documents were destroyed, but he may make a separate determination whether those documents affected this case. Kramer said, “Its is clear that she thought what was destroyed was important to her case, but what was destroyed is still open..still up for grabs.” Judge Kramer said Robinson wasn’t specific about which non-patent litigation documents were destroyed. Kramer mentioned that she gave a harsh remedy.

Judge Kramer asked Price, “You want a jury instruction saying the inference is factual – Rambus destroyed documents that affects the defense of this case? Or that Rambus acted in bad faith and infer they acted the same way in this case? Or both?” Price said he wanted both. Kramer said rule 1101 prevented the inference of the same bad character trait from a different case.

Mr. Powers of Samsung then had a turn. He said Robinson said the showing of bad faith of Rambus was “clear and convincing.” Powers said, “We have 33 pages of detailed facts and findings. There is no question of what she found at all.” He also said Rambus’ document retention wasn’t content neutral, as was recommended by their attorneys. He said Carp told everyone to “look for things to keep.” Powers inferred this was a direction to only keep advantageous documents. He said Rambus violated its own lawyer’s advice and this is an indication of Rambus’ bad faith.

Kramer asked Powers’ whether Robinson’s finding affected more than patent litigation and affected Rambus’ whole business. Powers said specifically no, but that is the inference she drew. Kramer asked for specific examples of non-patent litigation documents that Robinson relied upon for her ruling. The only example Powers could come up with was the destruction of board meeting documents. Powers finished by saying, “With the scope of destruction, unprecedented and massive, we couldn’t have a fair trial.”


Mr. Allen of Hynix said his client was equally entitled to CE as Micron or Samsung. He encouraged Kramer to wait for the federal circuit to decide the Hynix and Micron patent litigation appeals. He said, “We think it will result in the reversal of Judge Whyte.” Allen said the AT September trial date is unrealistic and should be delayed. He said the delayed trial date would “dovetail with the time it will take the federal circuit to rule.”

Mr. Perry of Rambus said, “The bottom line is there is nothing in Robinson’s ruling that should be deemed conclusive in front of the jury. The jury can determine what documents were destroyed. Hynix’s own records show that Hynix destroyed 500 boxes of evidence two weeks after they received a DOJ subpoena.” Judge Kramer pressed Perry on the meaningful differences between federal and California state law. Kramer also asked Perry, “In your mind, what is the use of this decision (Delaware) in this litigation?” Perry said, “My emotional side says the use is delay. Delay of a trial on the merits. But that may not be what you are asking.” Perry continued by saying he intends to show the defendants spoliated and the roles will be reversed. Perry said, “It may turn out that nobody wants to show it (spoliation). After the subpoena from the DOJ they destroyed 550 boxes. It’s gonna go both ways. That’s just one example.” Kramer said the number of boxes didn’t matter, but the content of those boxes.

Kramer then discussed Robinson’s ruling. He said, “I couldn’t find support for that broad of a statement. I don’t find support for everything.” Price said, “With all due respect, I don’t think this court can challenge whether she listed enough findings of fact to support her decision.” Price continued, “We shouldn’t have to repeat days and days of testimony again here. It’s not fair to fault her for not being too detailed. I know that is not what you are doing. Mr. Perry may have allegations of spoliation, but what Micron has is a fully litigated case.” Kramer said her opinion was well thought out, but correctly only dealt with the issues before her – patent litigation. Kramer said, “I don’t think her opinion clearly states whether her ruling is limited to patent litigation or whether it also applies to other standalone litigation.” Kramer continued, “It can’t be determined from her opinion what documents were destroyed. They appear to deal with IP (patent litigation). Purging licensing files, Intel agreements. I don’t think it says anything about non-infringement documents. Paragraph 57 is not a statement of fact. It is a conclusion of law. I think it is probably an overstatement. It is not a criticism of her. I don’t see how she could say that when she doesn’t know what was destroyed. Footnote 33 is fairly broad, but imprecise. Can’t tell what it was. All within patent issues – Jedec. Could very well be within patent arena. I don’t think it can be read to across the board behavior.”

Kramer continued, “Then we got Judge Whytes’ opinion. I don’t think I’ll tee that up for the appeals court. It doesn’t matter. I take Judge Whyte’s opinion as another factor added to other factors. It is insufficiently clear to find a prior determination or to preclude issues or to terminate litigation. None the less, both Judge Robinson and Judge Whyte exist in the real world. What to be done about it will be determined in the next phase. So I have denied the motion for issue preclusion and litigation termination.” Kramer said, “The evidentiary value of Judge Robinson’s and Judge Whyte’s ruling – one or both may preclude a fact from being argued. I don’t want to try everybody’s spoliation issue in front of this jury. It might be that the two opinions might be summarized and read to the jury.

Judge Kramer then changed topics to the trial schedule. Mr. Perry said he was vigorously opposed to Hynix’s request to delay to September trial date. He then tore down the various reasons Hynix gave to delay the trial. He said Hynix incorrectly claims that more expert reports will be needed because Rambus incorrectly ignores the statute of limitations issues in its damages report. Perry said, “We shouldn’t vacate a date set in stone, we think, based on a presumption of more expert reports.” Perry said Hynix wants time for the forthcoming writ to the appeals court to be decided regarding the election of remedies issue and the foreign commerce issue. Judge Kramer noted the appeals court probably won’t want to hear any of the issues until after the trial. Perry said Hynix also incorrectly estimates the time it would require to wait for the federal circuit. Perry said, “My personal opinion is it won’t be before the end of 2010 to get a decision.” Perry finished by saying, “Nine years ago they got together to fight to the end of Rambus company and that is what they are still doing today.”

Price then tried to get Judge Kramer to delay the trial at least until October because of a trial Price recently had rescheduled in Texas. Kramer tore down his request. It turns out the magistrate in Texas was never told by Micron about Kramer’s trial date. Price said he wished he had been there but he wasn’t. Kramer said, “I was the first to set my date and I got lots and lots of lawyers. I’m not going to do anything about that.” With his tail between his legs, Price said he would try to get the magistrate in Texas to change his mind.

Mr. Allen then told Judge Kramer about the recent developments in Judge Whyte’s court regarding damages. When Allen mentioned the lien in Korea, Judge Kramer looked surprised and said, “A lien on a property in Korea? They have liens in Korea? Interesting.” Allen then said he wanted to delay the hearing on the election of election of remedies from July 1st until August because of a planned vacation. Perry said, “I don’t want this to be a basis for a trial delay.” Perry then requested, and Judge Kramer agreed, to hear the motion earlier on June 29th. Allen looked disappointed that his attempt at delay backfired.

Allen then said he wanted time to writ a couple issues to the California appeals court and wanted to delay the trial until March or April. Kramer said he would sign most of the motions by tomorrow so they could go up on writ. Kramer said, “I won’t change the trial date now. You’ll know pretty quick whether you’ll have anybody’s interest on that (writ to the appeals court). I’m confident that unless something unanticipated happens, then we’ll be ready on September 28th. I wouldn’t have scheduled it otherwise. I’m not so sure the federal circuit’s decision will be determinative. At best, the decision will leave things ambiguous. At worst, maybe more ambiguous. One assumption would be we tell the jury and let them figure it out, still on appeal or not. This is an inference that will not shine a light on this case. I won’t change the date now. I will keep my eye on you and make sure everybody does their work. Leave it (trial date) as it is.”

[AC Investor Blog]

Caro Amigo,

Vê só o que estes meninos compraram na semana passada :

1 milhão de titulos

[AC Investor Blog]

Hoje já explodiu !!!

ja chegou aos 14

ACUMULA !!!!! Isto não é nada !!!!

[pasil74]

Hoje já explodiu !!!

ja chegou aos 14

[AC Investor Blog]

Aqui fica o gráfico do AC Blog.

[AC Investor Blog]

Existem valores disparatados, quer na compra, quer na venda. Estão a lançar o isco a ver se alguém se engana, é isso?

Há não há isco nenhum.....á uma dica......

Se achas que andam atirar iscos e não qures ver o que os Bigboys andam a fazer, utiliza esta ferramenta : http://www.mffais.com/rmbs

Esta vai ser a próxima DNDN