I

2
l 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
IJ

W. JOSEPH COTCHETT(#36324) PHTLIP GREGORY(#95217) L. PITRE& MCCARTHY COTCHETT, 840MalcolmRoad,Suite200 Califomia94010 Burlinsame, Tel: (650)697-6000.Fax: (650)697-0577 P. GREGORY sToNE (#78329) M. STEVEN PERRY(#106154) MUNGER,TOLLES & OLSONLLP GrandAvenue,35thFloor 355 South Calilomia90071-1560 LosAngeles, Tel:(213)683-9100'Fax:(213)687-3702 L. JEFFREY BLEICH (#144340) susAN T. BOYD (#229664) LEE S. TAYLoR (#243863) TOLLES& OLSONLLP MI.]NGER, 27thFloor 560MissionStreet, Califomia 94105-2907 SanFrancisco, 512-4077 Fax: (415) Tel: (415)512-4000' Attomeysfor Plaintiff RAMBUSINC. COURTOF THE STATEOF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

By

t4
t)

to

t7 18

RAMBUSINC., Plaintiff,

I cAsE NO. 04-43 105 RAMBUS'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITIONTO HYNIX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON FAILURE OF PROOtrAS TO ALLEGED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT Date: Time: Deot: Judge: 23, February 2009 l:30 p.m. 304 Hon.fuchardA. Kramer

r9
20 2l
))
L) al

MICRONTECHNOLOGY,INC., et al., Defendants.

Filed: May 5, 2004 Complaint March16,2009 Trial Date:

25 26 27 28
TO OPPOSITION HYNIX'S MSJRE FAILUREOF PROOFAS TO ALLEGED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

lPUBLIC

TABLEOFCONTENTS

t
Prgc """""""""'"'I

OFARGUMENT SI.JMMARY AT'ID INTRODUCTION il. il.

FACTS STATIMENTOF
ARGlJMENT.......,

A.

""""""" 5 Aguilar"" HynixHasNot MetIe InitialBudenUnder Ignorcs Of Description T-he Pefe$3gts'Conduct Hvnix'sCursory 1.

'

' IHH*ffie#"H$fii"*r#Hamnffi:
Do Of Denials Wrongdoing Not Shiff The Hvnix's Conclusory

2.

B.

Not About Mr. Tabrizi'sstatNnent P|ofit.lvqdqi4tign Does or """""""""""" Of Collusion PrallelConduct" etii** falG-it" H"tBr'rderu.Rambus l{tdt Tltt If Even HynixHasMetItsThrshold Judpent """"""""' Sunrmsry ro Preclude fri"*$['Sno"ti"g unfr egttilTo ls of DirectEvirience Conspiracy Sufficieot Defeat Rarnbus's l. 3.

iiiiai'-or-p.aucdon """"""-""'

"""""""""""""""""' o
o t In tu r^

"

ffi1g"ifu-ttaotioo"""""""'
C*"i""-Oitp"t"

"""""""' ru
'LL

2.

As Maerial Of Many Of The lssues FactThatHynix Dcsignated of subSect

ag&m*t efttle Existen6&"Anrrregar ToThe

"""""""""""""""""

J.

Of Strategy "Adoping New Brsiness Miuon's Purported 13 Late TechnologY Regadinghtcl's Statmnt Craig Barrctt'sPurported b. :':"'-- :"::" " " "':" " " " "" """"""""' 14 with*il;il Relationship Calls Eddins Evidence-Of.What Subgtantial Has Rambus Abo Profrred 15 *Evri&Etprviiil con"pita"y."........

.plusFactors,,, tncluding

rt"aitionat

l9 20 2l ?2 23 24 25 26 27 28

No Antitust Injury Provides BasisFor The Hynix's ArgumcntRegarding """""""' l8 (X Any Claim.-'-....""""' Dismissal Claims Judpent SbouldB DqdedAs To Rtmbus'sOdrer ro Summary AgainstHynix

Iv,

coNCLUSlON............

::::: AS PROOF TO ALL ECEDILLEGALAGREEMENT OPPO$NON TO I{YNIX'S MSJBE FAILUREOF

t
TABLE OF AUTIIORITIES
CAsEs STATE

Apztils v. AtlanticRichfreldCo-, 826,24 P.3d510(2001) 25 Cal.4th E&lns v. Redstone, 290 134Cal.App.4th (2006)................
FEDER^L CASES

passrm 15,17,l8

Amarclv. Connell, (9th 102F.3d1494 Cir. 1996).....'.."...... Co-, AtlantlcRIchfuIdCo. v. USAPetroletmt 495U.S. (1990)......... 328
BroadcomCorp. v. Qnlcomm Inc.,

Io

tt

683 s43F.3d (Fd. CL.2oo8)...

Corp.v. PuebloBo"'tl-O'Ma,

I Brunswick n7 tnT......... 42e U.s. trl

lll

Metalsv. Ken'Mrc Metals,Inc., Chamname """"""""' t t' t7 (10th cir. 2000.................. 458F.3d1073 In rc CitricAcid Litig., r< (9thcir. 1999)...............-. l9l F3d 1090 l 5 In re Citric AcA LiliT, 996F. Sum.95f(l.I.D.Cal.1998).................. 1 6 In re Coordinaed hodttcts AntitrustLitig'' ln Pretrlal Proceedings Petroleum 96 F.2d432(9thCir. I 990).."...... t7 Litig., In re Flat GlassArrtitntsa 7,16 385F.3d350(3dCir.2004) l8 Litig., Corn Sytq Antitrust re High Fructose l 9 In 295F.3d651(7thCir. 2002)...

20 2l T2 23 24 25 26 27 2t

In Re YitaminsAntittttst Litig., 320 F.Supp.2dI (D.D.C. 2004)

Ite-' v. KnevelboodDatrtes Krafi Foods, (glh Cir' 2000)........... 979 232F.3d NCAAv.BoardofRegents, 468U.S. (1984)........... 85 Rossi StandodRoofing Inc', v. 1998)....'...'.. 156F.3d452(3dCtu. lrc., Irc-, MackTracks, bkck fules& &nice, htc. v. MackTrucks, Totedo 204 530F.3d (3dCir' Ass'4 lte', Operators lleb Adver.v. TtmicaCasino -Tunica Alston, UnitedStatxv. (9thCir. 19v2).................9?4F.2d1206

r .' .,.1 r ,r ,.r r o 'o 'v' "'

i3d 4e6 4btfstlcir.20oa..........:..............'.....

" l0' ll' 12

..r

oPPostnoNTo}IYND('SMs'REFAILUREoFPRooFAsToALLEGED|LLEGALAGREEMENT

It I ?
J

TABLE OFAI,ITHORITIES (continucd) Comnrc'qInc. v. Lat ffices of Curtis Y. Trinko,LLP, Verizon

(20@) 5,+0 u.s.398

TREATISES

6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26

BeforeTrial (Ite RutterGroup Guide: Civit Procedure Weit & Brown,Cal. Practice 2008)

t 10.245.16

n 10.95.r

n
28
AS TO OPPOSITION }IYl{l)('S MSJRE FAILT'REOF PROiOF TO AIIEGED ILLECAL AGREEMENT

al
I 2
)

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT in participated anunlawful in alteges this actionthat Hydx andits ccdefendants Rambus Complaint I ' {t and to conspiracy restict production fix the price of RDRAMmcmorydevices. that fifither alleges "[a]s a ditcct rcsultof DefendanB'unlaudrl 95, 101-104.Rambus the havebecome de chip designs mmory altemative and combination conspincy,Defendants' to memorychip desip basbeenrelegated a nicherole-" and facto ndrsty standards, Rambus's was Rambus ntifledto receivea royaltyon thesaleof suchdevices, 1d.,1 12. Because has on adverse effec't theroyaltiesRanrbus collected Defendang'conduct'hasbada dramatic andwill collect . . ." /d., { 104. it claimsagainst on two grounds: Hynix hasmovedfor sumnaryjudgmenton Rambus's .cannotproveanillegol agSeement' involving Hmix; and(2) that (l) tha Rambus suprposedly and bas'Tail[cd]to quantif the duration extelrtofthe allegedprice supposedly Rambus

4
)

6 7 I 9 l0 ll

t2
l4 l5 l6 l7 18 19 20 2l ?2 23 24 25 26 27 28

and 1 3 manipulation outputresrriction.-Hynix Noticeof Motionat l-2. Hynix's motionis and meritless shouldbedenie4for two principalreasons: . ofan showingthe o<istence the Hynix hasfailedto address malerialevidnce lSnilar v. agfeeEent, thushasfailedto meetits theshold brndenunder and iUegal 826Q001). Co.,25Cal.4th Atlqtic Ricl{reld o ofnumrous and of of Theprescnce directevidence conspiracn the existence issues offact, requirethat Hynix's motionbe denied. disprned il. STATEMENTOFFACTS concerted will Rambus proveat tial thatHynix playeda pivotalrole in the Defendants' has standard-Rambus merirory effortsto preventRDRAM'sadoptiol asthc mainsteam ofUndisputedFacts.As these Statment its to submitted responses Hynix's Spalate separately naterialfactsaresubjectto genuine demonsfatc, mostofHynix's "rmdisputed" responses evidence the also Statement fail to address substantial dispute.Hynix's urotionandits Separate a thc conduct carsedRDRAM to become of Hynix's participcionin unlarvirl conspiratorial is below: ofthd Evidence presented "niche" product. Some its 1999,hrcl released *Camino"and"Cannel" chipsesthat In lateNovember l.
AS TO OPPOSNIOX HYNX'S MSJRE FAILURE OF PROOF TO ALLEGED ILLECAL AGREEMENT

I
I
Separatc III &e enabled RDRAM mclnoryto b usedwith Intel's Pentium processont. Rambus's ('RSS' in statemetrt oppositionto Hynix's Motion for summalyJudgpqtt - AdditionalFacts

3 4
f

Ar"),14t.

6 7 8 I l0 ll to of Separare Statcmetrt Factsin Opposition Hynix's Motionfor Rambus's ludgnern ('RSS'), t 22. Surnmary 3. 2000thd Dell' IBM 1999andJanuary wereawarcin December TheDefeodants p,roducb included RDRAM memoryandthattbose that had ncw computer andCompaq launched productliDs' Rss-AF for a wereexperiencing srrgc in demand tlrcir RDRAM-based companies rhat a rpresntativcrported 16, fi 51, 55. In a Febnrary 2000eoail, for exanrple, Micron sals bardfor Rambus is who at hc bad"just talkedto someone Samsung saidthatCompaq pressing 'soonerthal expected switch(towads technology had zupporf'urd that Compaq madea srrcccss is having." RSS-AF,159. lhll on based the apparent Rambus) 4. in Hynix wnswcll aurale this time periodthatttell andothercomputer

t2 l3
l4 t5 l6 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22

rcquiredlower DRAM pricing in orderto ramptbeir newproductlines.! manufactrners

2t 24 25 26 27 28

RSS,I 14;I{amilton Decl.,oc 48. 5. to in TheDefendants chosccollusion,not competition, respons customer

Bytd' repcsenAtiveCharles 8, demands lowerprices. A Febnrary 2000emailby Hynix sales for did that for exunpla.reported hehadleamed fron Sanwtgthfr,Infneon "apparcntly a snpid *lowerprice" thanSanrnrng RSS-AFt 60' by thing on RDRAMpricing" to Compoq offeringa Infincon's.'stupid'mistakcwasin "quot[ing] pricingwithoutfirst checkingwith" SamsungId.
AS OPPOSMONTO }Ilt{D('S M&I RE FAILUREOF PROOF TO ALLECED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

I 2 t 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll l2 t3 l4 l5 l6 17 18

wittr'' atso employee iold Hynix's Byrd th* unlikc Infineon,NEC tt4d'cbcked The sanrsung pricitrg." /d' and Samsung was"in line with [Samsung] 6.InApril2000,Hynix'sByrdprcparcdacbartshowingDRAMsrryplierpricesfor price" for a that six RDRAM modules.Byrd rcported sansunghadestablished "referencc to RDRAM that Sansng'docs not wart anyonc gobelow." RS$AF t 63' Hynix and conpanies'"Rambus the in held rcgularmcctings this time periodto discuss respective samsung status'ard RDRAM'!,roduction plur-" RSS-AFt 62. tbd In May 2000,Dell informedHynix andothcrDRAM manrrfacturcrs RDRAM povided Dell with firnIe RDRAM price tbp pricesweretoo higb andtbatunless manufactwrs declines, Dcll wouldaltcr its futureproductroadn4 to zubstantial projcctions showed thd 7. RSS-AF, 65{5' As a Dcll managopttt it RDRAJT{. fr includemoreSDRAMard DDR andle33 to priccsor we will continrE dcrase is to in May 2fi)0, Dell's ..rnessage [DRAM srrypliers] rfoop arormdDDR-" RSS't 14; systms nextgcncration and our RDMM forccastr we will architect llamilton Decl.,o<s'55,236. 8. Aftcr receivinglhll's pricc targets'

RSS-AF, 69. t

msilsto an Infincon orccutiveandfive sstrt 1 9 on Junc?, 20(n, a Hynix vic Presidtrt separaE

20 2l

Miclon exeqfivcs informingthmfhetHpix wouldnotmeA Dell's pricc trgets andssldng its rcconsider RDRAM st4pport ttA Dell a message it shoutd theurto join Hynix in scnding

22 RSS-AF,t71.1 23 25 26
g. collectivelyrcfi$edto mcct the As a resultof this conduct, DRAM sup'pliers

24 Dell's RDRAM price

n
2t

I Thc zuggestcd mssagp thatDcll sbould joid was "getyo.o heado,x of yorr root" with to rEQect RDRAIT{./d.
601515.l -3-

AS OF OPPOSMONTO I{YND('S MSJRE FAILI,JRE PROOF TO ALLEGED ILIJOAL AGREEMENT

RSS-AF,173. 10. to In late2000,Intel laurchedits newPortium4 chipsc{ whichwasoptimized

2
J

of banrhridthofferedby RDRAM. RSS-AF,176. takeadvantagc the enomrous I l. continued 2001trosharcinfomrationabouttheir RDRAJV! in Thedefcndane

4
)

plans. RSS-AF, 78-79 pricingandpmduction fi

6 7 E 9 10 1l 12 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 ?0 2l
aa

RSS-AF,1t3.2

Decl.,ex.78. RSS, 17;Harnilton t 14. to wercworking in concert providelow time perio4 the DefendanB In this same

that to DDR pricesandlow DDR priceprojections OEMsto crcdc the artificial imp'ression DDR in than otecutivc explained a Junc5, 2001 wouldbe lcssexpensive RDRAM. As a Micron sales so email,"[w]c wantDDR to orplodcinto themar&a-place haveactuallybctrrcquesting a io and Infineoo,Sansrmg Hpix to lowertheir DDR p,ricing helPit become standtrd(aod&ive

2l 24 25 26 27 28

TO OPPOSITION lm,ID('S MSJRE PAILUREOF PR@F AS TO ALLEGED ILLEGAL AGREEMEI{T

I
I 2 3 4
)

Decl',ex.268. awaycomplctely.' RSS, l; Hamilton f Rambus ) 15. Hynix Vice Presid"* T"b

RSS,I14.
16'Bytheendof2002'DDR'notRDRAMhadwonthc"$andardsbattle"describd prices that in Hynix's perdingmotion Hynix Motion at l:20. Hynix acknowledgcs RDRAM althougb DRAM standard' the factor in RDRAM's failureto becomc dominant wfc a substantial Id. higbRDRAM manufact[ing casl6'. at '1.2A' thosehigh priccsto purportedly Hynix attdbutcs 2l;4:15-16. III. ARGIJMENT

6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3

NotMctlglrd!@
ntst-make aprimafacle showingof the lJfu Agutlat, amovingdefendant 24 P'3dat 510' of noncxistcncc any triable issucof materialfact . . ," Agt.ila\zs Cal.4lhd 850, ofperzuasion) makes showingtheburdcnofproduction(bIItnot the burden this Ifthe dcfcndant a defendant thd shiftsto the plainniff /d. Unlike federallaw, Califomialaw requfusr in ordcrfor that it ro shift tbeburdenof production, mustdo mo'ethansimply"point ors throughargument'' must*present a . wide,nce Id. il854. Instead, movingdfcndant thc tbc plaint'rtrlacks nccessary evidencc rcasoubly obtain' [the] needed and th* evidencc tbpplaintifr doesnot lxrssess cannot not . . . .. Id.at 855. In addition,in orderto makeaprinu lrcie sbwing thx a plaintifrdoes *mustsetforth of elemeot its claim,a defendant on evidencc o esscntial the possess necessary to favorable it." Weil & Brown' Cal' on a/l the materialerridence point,notjust thecvideoce BeforcTrial (Ihc RufrorGroup2008)(*Weil & Broutn")' PucticeGuide:Civil Procedure (cmphasis original). in t 10:245.16 lguilr thd Hynix asserts it hasmetits initial burdcnrrnder tbat: sbowing by supposedly and (l) theDcfendan6'RDRAlvloutPut pricingpractic$ wre"not pamllel;" (2) Hynix's *htve doiedrbatHynix Participatcd anyarti-RDRAM conspiracS" (3) Hynix's and in witne.css wcremadefor indcpendent havetestified"tbat Hynix's pricingandoutputdecisions wibesses rsasons."Hynix Mcm. at 8:l-9:28. As setout below,Hynix hasnot met its initial business

t4
l5 16 17 l8 l9 20 2l
a.t

23 24 25 26

oPPosmoNToH.fi{'x'sMSJREFAILUREoFPRooFAsToALLEGEDILLEGALAGR.EEMENT

and burden, its motionshouldbdenied.

2
J

1.

4 5 6 7 8 I l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25

'Itc l)G-fcnd"Tts'. Conduc3 Ilynir'r CnrsoryIlacription O'f i6o"cr lton"r6ur Eraipler Of ParallclConqudW-ithRspcct Not PriccAni Thur D'oes Shift TheBurdcnOf iTdtp"itud Production

mrelyby atguing to shift thebur&n of production Rambus lJnda Aguilu,Hywx cannot did that ofparallel condrctshows the defendants not conspire." Hynix Mem' that..[t]heabsence ofthe DefeDdants' Parauel "alr' the materialevidence at 8:2-3, Instca4 Hynix mustaddress rcsponses' intermgatory in described Rambus's conduct, includingthe widenceof suchconduct 10:242;10:244-245. Weil & Brown,TT 10:95.10, that Hynix asserts "at Hynix did not mectthis burden.citing its expert'sconclusions, pedod' for differeotp,rices RDRAM andthat over aneight-year charged times,"the dcfendants ignorcs their total RDRAM outputvaried.Hynix Mem.at 8:5-12. But that cursorydescription to with respest botbRDRAM outputand of specificexamples parallelconduct numerous tha evidence in Rsmbus's Hlmix ntirelyfails to addrcas RDRAMpricing. For example, to october199, Hynix ndMiqotreached an agreement s|tqrtrdtbeir effortsto bdng RDRAM a Tabrizi,p'rcpared and of to ma*et. Hynix's Vice Presidcnt WorldwideSales lvlarketingFarhad ofand Hynix's intentionto hah "all production in relcase october 199 announcing draftpress to in ininvestment its RDRAM progracu resPonse a delayin thelanch of Intel's camiBo thenforwarded chipsei.RSS,fl 14, 17;HamiltonDecl', exs.3+35; RSS-AF,I 45. Mr' Tab,rizi rel:4l*, in &afi form, to two Micron o(ecuivesandaskedfor Micron's theHynix press he to Id. courments. I\tr. Tabrizi h3srcstifiedtbat hesentth&afr pre$ release Micron becausc .\lrantcdto seeif they canmake same day,a Microtr Id aonolscnrent." h fact,that same the ad wrotebackto Tahriziwith editsto Hytrix's draftrelease, he confirmcdthatMicron executive '\iliU begiving a similar message' aborf its RDRAM plans.Id tn of This is notjust widenceof'loraltel conduct";it is directevidence at agreenunt to aboutthat decision RDRAM pmductioneffortsandto sendthe sanemessage suspend

26 7l 28

TO OPPOSITION HYN'X'S MSJRE FAJLUREOF PR@F AS TO ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACREEMENT

I
n
J

by ofproductiondccisions customers.l The coordination

cartel is putaivc competitors classic among Act .bakes a conspiracy bchavior.Aguilar,25 cal.4th d 851(notingthatthe Cattwright per sewithoutregad to anyof its to compstitors restict outputand/orraisepriccsunlawful cfrccrs'...').vfrerAg4ild,HynkwasrequiredinitsopeningbrieforSeparatestdementto by <teclar*ions submitting ofparallel conduaby, for example' this address evidencc to Hynix andMicron officerscxplainingthattheir octobet 1999decision(s) knowledgeable suspcndRDRAMproductioneffortswercmadeindePenderrrly'basedonlegitimatebusincss of Hynix did not do so,it hasfailedto meetits initial burdcn considedtioas,Id.8861. Bccause RDRAM outputdccisions' to underlgzilar with rcspcc't the Defendants' production for o<planation - widence Hynix similarlyignores andoffersno pm-competitive AltbougbHynix to Pn.ci,|8|. and parallclconduct agtementswith resPct R.DRAM showing

4 5 6

8 9 l0 ll t2

poinBtoitso$rts,analysisofaveragepriccs,Hynixiswellawarcthatthiscaseinvolvesfar for this prices, Instead, cascinvolvcscompctition of l 3 morcthanallcgations gallel average ofcomputcr slots' that is &iven in largepartby the expertations t4 .designwins" and"roadmap HanriltonDecl',cxs' 89' 109and and 1 5 manufacture6 Intcl aboutfirtureDRAM prices, RSS,l 13; providedto OEI'ISandIItl by ihc arc 159.4Thosecxpectations in tum drivenby projections l6

t7
l8

DRAMsrrpplicrs"Id.Byworkinginconcerttoprsntartificiallyhig!orlowpricing proc'ss' Id' An otpert's can expcctation*DRAM sup'pliers "tiy'' thc DRAM selection is of r 1,, ai."*r"a in scctionIIIB, infa, thc prescne of directcvidence an agreemem alonc been it has widclv

l9 20

Morcover' casc' jnd6#;iffi- fr; fix.ing r"H;fi t #;fi;"ry bc will jifiii"il't{ile,'l'ifini-most importarit wiaence gcnerallv recocdzed a 'r]iffir'.i" that tl" r".-*y r :ttat tllre ilas an actual, not to compt.'"/11agrc-emcnt manifest 2l Inre "ria*.. lssfild fid;3oi6,i citt 2099(nat Glgs{)'tuortng High 'ii"ti,u Antitrustr,irig., F'tatGtass (7th 2002)' cir' ias.,zgsF.3d-651,661 22 Cii s>",ry,tiitntst
23 24 23 26 27 2E
in chips,asdescribed a . In this respect, markctfor baseband conpaition is similarto thatiq th-e Circuitl tt of 4peats for tbeFederal *-.ffi6iriffi6tthtot goodg *[t]he narka for bascband chipsislnlikc thetypicalmarketfor consumr is *-p"rc foi e*h consun:r-slle'andthc compctition wherccomPeuloo is for sales not on-aunit-by'utl : . ' . c;p"ddd and inst&tancous *-d;; for 'desigpwins' for compdtiin i" .ft"ttt!ti""a U competing but basis, ratnet proposcd (quotingrmpublishcd 702 Inc. Corp.v. Qaalcomm , 543F '3d 683, (Fed'Cir' 2008) Broadcom [Xstrict Courtopinion).
ALLEGED I TEGAL AGREEMENT AS rO OPPOSITTON IIVXX'S MSJRE-F;ILURE OF PROOF TO

ffi tliJr'ffiiit ." chip...

thc which iria-pr.a*tonof [prroducts] will cmbody

s npnAM priccspaidby a largegloupof customcrs aysnothingat all of calculations avetagc set Io pri abou whether ce rr/oiectiorrs particularOEMswetc compctitively RDRAlvlprice to Thereis subtantial widencc of collusionwith respcct thc Defendants' told manufacturet' the computcr Dell" thc world's largest projections.As notcdabove, othrtypesof and in Defendants May 2000that it wouldrduccits RDITAMusage, switchto futureprice projectionsdid not reflcct zubstantial RDRAM py't3yDRAMs,if the Defendants' at in of 65. RSS,1114, l?; RSS-AF,'N Iostead engaging pricecompetition Dell' decrcases, tbat to workcdtogethet ensure their pricep8ojectioBwerinflared howwcr, thc Defendalrts callsin whichtheydiscussed and of and Hynix, samsung Micron bada series meetings tclephooe Vicc President Dell's pricetargets.RSSfl 14, 17;RSS-AI, fr 67'72' lnhme2000' Hf'nix thatHynix would not at l l I Tabrizi sentemailsto exccutives InfineonandMicronthat madeit clear to jointly scnda message tha for meetDcll's pricc targets RDRAM andp,roposed tbc companies

ft

"l "l
t4 l5 t6 t7 t8

rtfP with rcspect RDMM. RSS'fi 14' 17; to Dcll andIntel to "ga yotu hcadout of your RSS-AF,1?1. Two dayslater,on Junc9, 2000'

RSS-AF,{73. rhis of to Statement ad&ss evidnce parallel Hynix's frilure in its motionandSeparate to with respect Dell's RDRAMpricetargcs is fatalto its motion. This is particularly conduct salesP "lower th"n forecasted Dell tbat advantage" caused to experience lack ofany pcrformance othcr systcms.Hynix Motion at 3:12-17.Hynix alsofailedto address of its RDRAM.bascd e.g.,RSS'11 14, 17. rcspons6, see, interrogatory ofprice collusioncitedin Rambus's cvidencc urder'{guilar' bruden Hynix haslhusfailed1osatist its thrsbold 2. Ilynir'r Conclurory Itenidr Of Wrorgdohg llo Not Shift The Burdcn Of Production

1 9 tnregiventhatHynixsuggegBbirsststEmentofFactstbatitwas"theCaninodelaysandthc 20 2l 22 2l 24 25 26

n
28

of spccifice<amples collusion,Hynix claimsto havemet its fts Despirc failureto address of ofproductionby citingtheprrportedtestirnony six Hynix enploycesthat they initial burden to into, ageetrredts fix RDMM pricesor rastrictoutpwdid not luow of, andhadnot cnrcred
ffi ILLEGALAGREEMENT AS OFPROOF TOALI.EGED

2
J

4
)

satisS do denialsof wrongdoing not, however, . HynixMotionat 8:l;8:/2"-9:3 Conclusory in First,asexplained Rarnbus's reasons. w&r Aguilu, for several Hynix's initial bru,rlen oftendid not of askcd thc Hynix deponents the Statcment, questions to response Hynix's Separate denialsarc simply insufficien' as priceandoutp|il. RSS,I 14. Secon4conclusory covo Dorft declarations that e.a*were in why the defendants' lheAguilr cotnlnade clearin describing ofproduction: to suffrcient shift the burden gencral.j stated *The dectarations questioqit mustbeemphasized' in mlde llreu cap-lclty' ,, the companles how on persqralknowledge aboutCARB gaso-lule'rreff.e' Iney orcfructionandpricingdccisions atu. birldlvassertthat tlvy mde tt'emi"depenctefiry' 4id nore thq, wfin eacn did nmrethanbaldiydenythat theynde themcollutnety otrEr." added)' Aguitm, 25 Cat.4that 861(emphasis providemorethanjust bald denialsis particularly that Thc requireinent Hynix's witncsses pledguilty to in ofthc executives qucstion several hergivenrhar,asHynix acknowledges, acute DRAMpricefixing,Hynix,srcpresntationthatitsexecutives,guiltypleas..exc|uded which in question, RDRAM," H),trixMotionat 9 n'16, is simply hlsc. ThePleaAgreernents to tlrc pricc Hynix did not provideto thecour! did not cxcludeRDRAMandinstcadrefened ..DRAlv!- wtrichis dcfincdin a way that inchdes,not excludes, RDRAM. RSS"ll l + fixing of 192,279,2ff., 291.5 I 5; Ilacrilton Dcc1.,er.s. 3. Mr. Tabrizi'r Strtement About Profit Merinizrtlon Doer Not Artdng The EvidcnccOf CollusionOr Peratlcl Conduct

8 9 l0 ll

t2
l3 l4

l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27

orfput

Hynixalsotel|slheCourtthat"Hynixocecutives''haveexplainedHynix'spricingand decisions.Hynix Motionat 9:4. Howwet, Hynix pointsin its motionandSeparate

Hynix at 9:11-15; by to statement tstimony only onesucbwitncsq FathtdTabrizi. Hynix Mem.

o<cluded explicitly in i" *", asHynixpoirg out,thstHynix'sowncnrporde agEement pler 'One[{." Basileo not dos supPon 28. Decl.,.ex. Thatexcltsion nOnef,l fio. lfi"-itenniti* of
i|*i* 'bngoinginves of c*p"tare in tbe-Department Justicc's

itset{n'a qjlf':d pH grrgr-Hvqix executivicaire H'ffioilf*:#'riiitip[J";inv"*'s 2E ;'r;ft-.b"Ath.?O6""ti*firiritnJsaner."ricti""Oediritionof*DRAM.'FLSS,ltl+15

ffi AGREEMENT eS Or pnOOr rO NrecED lI t -F6AL

'fr B!:#:r"_ruf_m#"fl,,f 1n*#ii#$$ff m

I
I

St*ernent, 16. Separate ! nothingaboutHynix's Id. Th" cit"d totimooy thusestablisbed of the nor after 1998, doesit address evidence spccificparallel urd production pricingdecisions above' andpricedescribed to with and conduct agrecrnents rcspect RDRAM production Insum,HynixhasnotmetitsinitialbudenofprodrrctionunderlSrrila|Dnnke1,,prina of the ofmaterial fact'' rcgarding existence ofany tiable issrrc ofthe nonexistence /acl:eshowing involving Hynix. Aguilo,25 Cat4that 850. H].nix hasfailedto address anunlawfirlagreement are makeabouttbeevidence not zupported it and all oftbc materialevidence, the assertions does Hynix's motionmustbe add by the documents tcstimonyit c itrx-' Ihdet Aguilo, therefore' denied.Evenif,however,Hynixbadmetitsttrrrden,Rambuscouldrcadilymeetitsownbrrrden set ofproduction,for thereasons out below'

2 3 4
J

6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 t4

l. 15 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l
,,,,

Of Rrmbur's Dlrect Evfolcnce Conrpincy k SufhcientTo Dcfcrt Al z4grilar Motion

AsHynix(atleastimplicitly)acknowledges,thepresenccofdirectwidenceofconspiracy willdefedamotionforsrnrnaryjudp'Nr!forsuchevidencerequiresthatajrrrydetermine of existed. Put differcotly,a plaintifs p'rofferof dtrecrevidence an the wbether conspiracy from that rctrdersmelevnt Aguitar's restictionson theinferences canbedrawn agreement '[d]irect evidence concerted action'is that of As t,sturtial endence.6 usediu this context, ctrct rmiformly cases 6 While Rmbus haslocatedno Califomiacases. dircctly9n point, the Federal evidence direct offcred

23 24

st""d;il-A;i;pet mia-ttit1frfr*7"r" 1,,'ta rytreti 1n"j't"intnhas Antitrust_Litis., Pro&tcts ri;ch-aingsn_Fetoteun ciiii*t"alrina #;;;i-i{:;'i;7, "i6r-itfil.uitritibii. Inc & senice, v.Llackrructa,

to conc-lude evidence"); drawn circumsantial tftriif!-ro6i"tng iifereices drrm ffiffi-,;;;d cir' 4l l (5th 2007) e"i rT', cxp 'sacg3, 25 ffii;;'i;;ld";r: ""n.pirf ii"iii-ffiti6 ".Tuiiro sufrcie !o allow a

rserii'siiiai rii"a"uT"tsates is direct tu roledo's evidence i;.: i;o irtidi,5lo iid ir.-i6osi1;ir"*r* F *tl$ to compete Mack existedmong not jury Gt a conspiracy
-p-l"imf evidence not need adduce-circumstantial thr into ') not there-need bcaainquiry lfe ioA.p*a*tty, and conrp""too rhcalleged that motives economic ""i 1116 na-t"'"ri"a oiifi *tioiritlry of defendants' cfaim a"t ;ffifilit" omitted)' and quotations citations lintcrnat -10@OF

26 27 28

" im#iitr*'m,*tlar;*r'titr:lmg.H,"P l$ff

t"*tlfri
IIIEcAL AGREEMENT PRooFAs ro ALLEGED

2 3
4 5 6

whichexplicit|yrefer[s]toan|nderstafltingbetweentheallegedconspiraton.....Twicaweb thc Advertising plaintiffhad ' Adver.,46i9.3dat409 (citationromitted) lr TunlcaWeb profreredtestimonybytheplaintif|sCEothatoneoftherlefendant,snartaingdirEctorshad not agreeme'lrt'' to dealwith theplaintifr' Id' at had told him tbrt thedefendaoB a "gentleman's 4w,4|o.ThcFiffhCircuitreversedandremandedthetialcourt'serrtryofsrrmmaryjudgment widcncc of an thencircumstantial if that on thc grouod this evid'nc, admitte4wasdircct rather judpenr Id' at 4l0.4ll ' and agreemeut wasthussufficicntto barsummary Rambushasrrncarthedafarmoresubstarrtialarrayofdircotevideocetbanthep|aintiffin TunicgwebAdyeTtisiregortheplaintiffsinanyofthecasescitcdinfu.T,strya.Examrplcsof Tunicaweb advefiisL8,496 F'3d at to that'oglicitly refer[sJ atruoderstsndin&' directevidcnce includc: 2t09, suppliers DRAJvt benreeo

8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5

0)
that Miqon's wtittEnresPonse it efforte,RSS't 14;Hamilton Dect.,exs.3,f-35;RIiS-AF 1 46; .i 14;Hamilton Dccl.,q.265; (3) 2000'NEC mmago CturlesByrd that in Febnrary tbc rcportby Hynix acoo.rnt had"checkedwith.sansmgbeforeoffcringRDRAMpricestoDellandwas..in 47: line with [Smsrmg's]picinC' RSS,t 14;Hmilton Decl" ex' (4) a'ieference had th Apdl2000 rcportby Hynix's Byrd th* Samsrng established Rss' f 14; to trot th* price" for RDRAJv! samsung'does wantaoyone go belog" HamiltonDccl.,elc 53; etecutiveC'K' Chungtbat in the acknowtedgment March2002by Hynix salcs *from Microo'" RSS't 14;Iltmilton Dccl" ex' Hpix's DDR pricesto HPwere lzl0;and havc that in by stated a Mcron managr April 1999 Smsrug may the concern
TO AITEGED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

t6 t7 1t l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (5)

I
t

RDRAM'RSS' l; t 'broken rar*s with ttreotherzupplicn" anddecidedto support

HamiltonDecl', ex' 22' TheexistenceofthisdirectevidoccofagmeDtswithrespecttoRDRAMoutputand jrdgrrent andelimincestheneedfor a firther RDRAM pricesbalrtthc entryof summary considerationofRambus'scircumstantialcvide'nceofconspiracy'seeTunicalfebAdver''496 156 F.3dat 4l l; rRossi, F-3dat 465' At Mrtcrirl ' Many Of Thc luuer Of {pt f}1t Hynir DerimatcdSubicct 2. of Thc Aiir

4
)

6 7 I 9 10 ll 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23

to rnt'ntlli"ii"-orln-ncgat
GenuincDirPutc"

Agr&mcnt

EveuifHynixhadmetitstbrcsholdburdenofprodrrction'audwenifRambus'sdirect jrdgpent' Hynix's motion wcreinsuffcient to bartbe enty of surnmary of evidence conspiracy would*illfail,formanyoftb..material"frcrsthatHynixsetsoutinsupportofitsmotionare dispute' ofdeep andgenuine tbe subject UnderCalifornialaw,Hynix'smotionmustbGdeniedifthereisagenuinedispurcasto justonaofthenumerousfactsthatHynixhasdesignatedasmaterialtoitsmotion'SeeWeil& Brown,t10:951(advisingcousclo..[i]rrcludeonlythosefactswhichtetrlymdefialtot|r claimsordef'rsesbccausctheseparatcstatcmedeffec,tivelycozcadzsthematerialityof aso anyof the factsin yout separate factsareincluded. Thus,if a tiable issrr is raised whatever andpunctu*ion in original)' As a the statement motionmustbedeniedt') (emphasis that disputEs suround will Rambus not in this briefdcscribceachofthe factual consequerce, Hynix,smarerialfacls,forthoscdisputesareorrtlinedindetailinRarnbus'soppositionto Hynix,sSeparatcstatlmedt.Thiskiefwillinsteadaddresstwoexamplesoftlmsedisprrtes:(l) that busines srate$|'' andwhethr sfrtcgy explains disputeover Micron,s.general tlreparties, Micron,s..fait[rrreltoma*etRDRAMincomrnercialvolr.rrncs.'..HynixMcm.at5:5.7;Hynix whcthrIntelCEOCraig Banett Statemcil,f 2; and(2) theparties'dispuleovf, Separate ..Pubticlycharacterizcdlntet,srelationslripwithRambusasa.mistakc.'.HynixMem.at4:6-7; citatio$ srgges!bothoftbese"facts" were Starement 25. As thse I Hynix Separare nrfficientlyimportattoHynix'smotiontomprirmerrtion,o',,inHynix'sSe?aratestatement bdef' Neitheris tue; certainlyboth aredisputed' andin Hynix's supporting
AIiECED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

24 25 26 27 28

I
I

.'
5

'Adopting Nen Mlcron's purported Burincg Stntegt Of Technologl Leta"

4 5

HynixattcmplstoexptainMicron'shilurctoprovidcRDRAMincommcrcialvolumesin bwiness$raregrin thattirne pcriodof 2000and2001by pointingto Micron's purportcd StatcmentI 2' Hynix ,adoptingnewrcchnologtlatc. . ' ." Hynix Mcm. at 5:6;Hynix S'paratc in executivc supportofthts

testimonyby anyMicron or 6 docsnot cite anydeclaration othcr in rcstimony 2008by a forrrcr Rambtts '1 materialfact. hstca4 Micronpointsto deposition 8 9 l0 ll t2

Statcmctrltl 2' 'maybe that wastheir strategy'' H]4ix Sparate officer, David Mooring,that

cillzgBasileoDecl.,cx.3g'This*evidence''isinsufficicnttoprovethefactassertedinligbtof Hmix,sfailurctolayafoundationforthistestimony,itsuncertainnature,andthcfactthateverrif *by ir' asHynix dcscribes givetrthat it it wereunambiguous, wouldnot be a statenNrt P.anbue" thewitnesshadlcftRarrbuslongbeforethcdepositiorrinquestioo.HamiltonDecl.,ex,249. WhatHynixalsoignoresistbatthe.Tacf'thatitaskst}ecourttodrawfromMr.Mooring's

t3
l4 l5 l6 t7 18

l9 20 2l 22 2l 24 25 26

n
28 -13ED ILLEGAL AGREEME}IT

I
., )

4
l

6 7 I 9 l0
ll

RSS,t 2; HarniltonDecl.,Exh' 214'

12 l3 l4

it wasMicrou's genuine dispurcabout HamiltonDcl',Exs.79,52,?i16. Thcreis thusa .generalbusinessstdcs/'in2000-200ltobclatctomarkctwitbnewD'RAMtecbnoloSres. b. Cnir Berrett'r Purportcd Strtcnent Regardinglotel's RctrdonrhiP lVith Rambur

l5 l6 17 18 l9

Hynixalsoasserrsasamaterialfsctth*"[i]noctober2000,Intel'schiefexecrrtivc,Craig Barret!publiclycharacterizedlntel'srelationshipwithRarnbusasa.mistake.'"HynixMem.at protrercdby Hynix is aninadoissiblc Statement, 25' Theonly support I 4:G7; Hynix Separate newsarticlethatcitesasecondinadmissiblcnewsarticle(whichHynixdidnotprovideothe

20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 2E

court).Butev'lifthecitedarticlcswereadmissible,|herrnderlyingfactswouldstillbilr bad that prior comments refemed dispuG,for oncweeklat6, IvIr.Bare'lt explained his callcd processor RDRAM*into oneparticular *specifica[ally].to tatel's decisionto incorporate ..Timna,.whichwasplanned bc usedin "low.costPC's. RSS,f 25; I{arniltonDocl'' erc 107' to RDRAM for the Timnaprojec{'it was tbat Mr. Banct furtherexplaincd whcnInrcl hadselccted expcctingthatRDMMPriceswouldhavedroppedbythetimethep'r,ocessorwallrcadyloship. Id.BecauseofhigbRDRAMpriccs,however,Intelwasforcedtochangeisplans'Id' Inotherwotds,notonlyisthereagenuinedisputeabodwaatMr.Barrettactuallysaidin

-l+
TO OPFOSIflON HYNX,S TUSNTEffiOT ILLEGALAGREEMENT IS PNOOT TO ALLEGED

I 2 3 4
)

that changes Mr. Barrenwasdescribing tbat shows the Intel roadmaP Octobet2000,the evidenc RDMM priccsandpricepFojections' effortsto manipulate by werccauscd the Defendalrts' in fastsdescribed Rambus's ovcr Hynix's material In light ofthe manydisputes rh4nmetany burdenofproduction has Ranrbus mor'e statement, oppositionTo Hynix's Scparae to it mayhavehadin responsc Hynix's motion- Weil & Brown'I l0'95:l ' e Rembur II Alro Profiercd Subrtrntirl Evidenc OI Wh8]tEtldiw Crnl "pfuif"cot!"" lncluding "EvidenccInplying A Tnditionrl ConrPirecY." 290,30+305(2006),for the proposition , Hynix citesEddrs v. RedstoneI 34 Cal.App.4th 3. that a plaintiffrelying solelyon 'tonsciousparallelism"mustmakea showingof variousfactors' or agaiDst self-intere,st otherphs factorsthat imply the actions includingparallelconduct, ard Hynix Mern.at 13:9-18.As otplainedin detnilabove ofa existence traditionalconspiracy. is Rambus not rclying solelyouparallel StaGmeril, to in Ranbus'sOpposition Hynix's Separde thcir RDRAM coordinated that it although hascertainlydernonstrated thc Defcndants conduct, at pricingandoutpntdecisions varioustimcs. The additionalEddinsfactarsarethusuncccss8ry' and Hpix's actsaginst self interest showing evidence Rambus alsosubmittd has Nevertheless, that Hynix conccdes R^wnbus's manyofthe other.uus factoB' identifiedin Eddins, Indced, a Elzinga,hassubmitted reportoqlaining the irationality of expcrt,Prof.Kenneth economic share.Hynix Mem.at 14:22'25, or for not Hynix's decision to compte RDRAM sales mar{<et Prof. Elring"'s conclusiols citing BasileoDecl., ex.29. while Hynix asls the court to disregard ..because is impopcr to sccond-gucssbusiness ofthis typc. '..," id. at l5:l-2' citing dccision a it provides no I101 (9lh cir. 1999),tfuci'lic Acrdcasc In re CitricAcid Litig.,l9l F.3d1090, a had the for support Hynix's position In thA case, defendant submitted contemporaneous for reasons theslowerexpansion" In rc citric Acid incmat reportthat qqlaincd its "businss aa4 asnotcd 951, Litig.,996F. Sup,p. 960(N.D. Cal, 1998). Hynix pointsto no suchdocunc,nt or testimony &clarationby a Hynix orcortivc cxplaining has above, not profferedanydcposition effortsor any of its su@uent RDRAM p'rodirction to I eitherits Octobec 999dccision susPend

6
n

8 9 l0 l1

t2
l3 l4 l5 l5

t7
l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-15AS TO OPPOSTTTON NWX'S MSJRE FAILUREOF PROOF TO AIIECED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

2
J

t tha Hynix asksthe Courlsimplyto assume HYnix's outputandPricingdecisions. tnstead, ..businessdecisions',werelegitimatebycitingevidcncethatothersintheindustryhad.hdged theirbets,aborrtRDRAMforvariousreasoDlt.HynixMem.at15:10'Thisispureargument' on werebased thc cited that its own decisions of for however, Hynix offersno evidnce anykind thc "widence" citedby Hynix is itself the and of rcasons others, in any went virtually all of RSS'lt 2S38' disputc. 'See zubjectof ganuine Ranrbrshasalsoprofferedzubstarrtialevidencewithrespecttotheotheri$usidentified beliwed thatthey (l) DRAM manufactnren by Hynix at pp' 1618 of its motion,including: couldcontolJEDEC,sDRAMtechno|ogycfuices'compareHynixSepaateStatcmcot't40' statingthat"JEDECis DRAM manufrcturers t[ wirft RSS, 40 (citing emailcirculaed among by to whdeverwe deoide approve;); (2) the Defendang aod oUR organization will approve ud earlypartof this dccadgcomwe had tbeir own admission marketpowerin tbe tate 1990's HynixSpalalEstatementfal,wirlrRss,t4l(citingHynixinrernaldocumentsc'lli4gHytrbq MicronandSaosungthe"bigthree,"whoenjoyed*marketdominenceandconbol');(3)the DefendanB RSS-AF, 9l; tlamilton Decl.,o<s'52' 85; I givenSamsung's and was conspiracy quiteplausible rndetstadable in participaie tbc alleged wouldendup beingboththe RDITAMandsqport DD& Samsung cartelto impde of well asthe dominantsupplier thenew supplierof a high'pofit nicheproduct(RDRAM) as Rcport (Supplemental product(DDR)'' R'SS, 43; t{amiltonDecl" ex' 89 f memory mainstearrr 2m0 to kepits in ? For example, why it deliberatelychose Jrme o<plains Hynix nowbere that knowing tbat p"'ces desoite

4 5 6

8 9 l0 il t2 13 l4 l5

l6 17 18

19 leadcrshippositionwithrespecttobothRDRAMsndDDRurdgiventhat..[u]ndcrasrrccessfirl 20 2l t2 23 24

pppqlytpiices par ""t roiiS6h-gri#' ih- S!S,!4"^ ro RSS, 14'Hamilton t RbnArft rb"r "-insure[rt]- Dcx;o:,ft;T;;h*; -*ur*tmr tii)o rrynix. witbitscompetitor decision to (l) cbeck 25 to 6ttbi rt iscrearry-iil'rionalioii ,td tLn rfafter"l"lyprice ilI;. tbe alove tZi ^r"#Jir-ff";,;ft.g prr"rog its detemine tut.,'e
26

n
28

r'"'Sr s*.g:$lffi;:$ffiffi ;ffi;T"#,i#,Trffi?#"ffi

.. this from evidence.thatrwiiieifrliit"itit"tA-*rid-to
F.3dat 369.
66t 535.1

nx 6ces'" nat Glass'38s

EDILLEGALAGREEMENT

.16.

I
)

by Prof. Elzinga)-r

'$us factors' thar,underEddizs' of has Rambus alsocomcforwardwith evidence the

3 4

5 6 7 8
9 l0 ll

of $rpportths existence conspiracy: 'plus faitor' is -In additionto actsagainst sclf-inter*t' another irylying a traditionalconsPtrqcy-;co.1gi". evidence Ll1.--, ^- firtive bchauor'orscussrons oomrtmitv'-uiocplaired meetings' participant admissions' ii"t"tges, ambiguous iii-iii"ffit". ilna$ of commonaction itramt6'ias' soliiitationsof arec-;f to bids' refusals bi{ victinr'.idenrical lit*tea or markets times' or other "g*ntti'pot*tial competition'in pt"t"d-d.Pit*y and "t 5ii* pn'"ttJri*titnt iJto6 ctosetorcoiucidence bevond intcrdependence'"' tV .* recogrized "ipi-"iiti"o Eddins,|t4Ca|.App.4that305n.l1(citationomitted).AssetoutintheRss'Rss-AFandin by (submitted Hynix asexhibit2? to tbe BasilcoDeclaration)' responses interrogalory Rambus,s betwen .\mexplained mectings'witb its putativecompetitors in Hynix participated numerous

12 I 1998and2002,includingtwo'partymeetingsinAsia,AustinaDdBoise'aswllasmulti1 3 defendantmeetingsofgrorrpssuchas.Mll,..Ml4,".IDq,'.AMI2"aod*TheCormcilon l4
routinelyoccunedboth in sbowsthst "idormation cxchangescompetingPower.. Theevidence

1 5 theprivaicmeetingsandingroupscttings''geaRSS,tl(citing'fororamplc'HamiltonDecl''ex' l6
3T,anoctoberlggexchangeofemailsbetweenHynixandMicronexecutivesrcgarding an ex' RSS,'l 9 (citing for example, 92' anOctober1998reportby t 7 RDRAM production); to DRAM manufacturers provide had thd l 8 Infineonemployee a Hynix o<ecutive urgedother *generdling] a Intel from to 19 inflatedRDRAM prduction estimsts Intel in orderto Plved rhscribingan oversuppb{; RSS,l 14(citing' for orample,ex' 66' a Hynix document 20 Rambus

2r
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

August2000meetingbetweerrHynix'sCEoandMicron'scEoto*decidcwbattodowith Ranbus'); RSS-AF"I'10 (testimonY

t Hynix's

s market

#ffi

-Ci;.rrrwpn" 3d1073'lt Mrt"k v. KerMac Metals,lnc',45E.F ::.ag;$ grara ma*et strue'"

oilsatisnea [wouidl the6t$ai ;ffi;5[";";;; to profits so are di.rG ti"?td*i"tlo they doing toprotect orsimPlv ""i,ffi'r;irJii,ilffit*
NSJE TO OPPOSITION HYNX,S TTAST AS RE OF PROOF TO ALLEGED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

ftiff4hTT'"#Hf"gtm,',,r Affi 'ry"&FnSIff ift to]-".e__T__,. attempt nrms

I 2
t

*rT

ex. a t niting 166,Hvnix

rtportofaMarch30,20(X)neetingwilhssnsungtodiscussthccompanies'respectivc*Rambus summary of in plan )' As the Corutcxplained thc course dcnying and status production '2dl'21(D'D'C' 2004)"[t]hese aretwo 320 judgnenrin ln Re l/iru,rrint Antttrltstf,r:tig'' F Supp compctitorsmcctingaborrt.sharingplans,aod.complemanting'theirbusiness_trotthetypcsof competiton'" that discussions shouldtakeplaccbetwcen action "thrcatsof common oftndiscussd alsoshovnthattbe participants I}e evidencc e'g'' PSS'l 16 a against potentialvictio' Le'' Rambug See' directed Hmilton Dtr;l,ex'?Z P.SS, I (describing t regardingMicrol,sdiscussionswithsamsrmgaborrt.\rhattheRambus/Iotclbizmodelwilldoto 9 HarniltonDccl" el<s' and13 I (describing our autonomf if RDRAM Fvailed);RSS'f

5 6 7 8 I l0 lt t2 l3

(Micronc,nailstolnfinconan<lHFixrefeiringtoRmbusas..tbedartside").Inaddition'itis in a '!'rovcd conspiragf in thesczremaket to thd undisputed Hytrix hasadmittd Participding l4 at Eilitts,L}4 Cal.App.4th conspiracy.RSS,t 15. fue generalty time as&e alleged sazra l 5 at the the '!us hctors'' thusmilitatesstronglyagaiost of presensc tbcsc 305n.ll. Theundisputed 16 case' l 7 entryof summry judgrreot in thir 18 19 20 2l 22 23

c
andoutpltt dte R'nbul cm establish c:oct impacton pricing that Hynix argues uoless fromtheDefcodants,cooduct,itcamotshowthditsufrcfedantitrusti'dury.Noncofthccascs citedbyHrrnixsoboldltiswgusettedthatilaoantitrustcasc,.[i}tisnotncccssarytoshow the sustaind just th* tbe anirnrstviolationcaused of with totsl ccdait$ythe amount damagcs Rassi'156F'3d at 483' It b black lefier law tbat by aotitrustinjrry sufrercd thc plaint'rff'' agreBcffitorestrainproarcrionandkee,ppriceshighare"ilbeEntlyi|cstructivofcmpetitive

24 25 26

conditionsandmaybecondeonedevenwittoutproofof[tbeir]actualmarkctefrwL-An4rlv. (citationomitted). Herc,thc que*ion of whcrher 27 cotretr,ro2 F.3d 1494,1509(9rhcir. l99e (thc 'actusl narket effecf alleged Rambus rctegatiol of by bad 28 tbeDefndant, conduct rbe -18ILLEGAL ACREEMENT

I
a

by nor is RDRAMtoanichestahrs) neitherspcculative, fmcifirl, nor unstryported thc widence' burdenrmderlSzilr Hynix's argrrents to the coffiary do not satisfyits tbreshold on this issue.

el

3 4
)

iwolving the oramincis tbe evidencc all Evcnif Hynix hadmettbd burden, thd the Courtneed cffortsto elevatcRDRAM pricesandpriceprojectioN to Dcll ahvc tbe Defendans'coordinatcd stdrDeft by DcUthatif iA targct in lcvetsthatDcll hadrequcste4 the frce 61','nembiguous systcusaormd and'rchitcct next generation priceswerenot met,it wouldrcviseits roadmaps DDR" raltcr tbanRDRAM. RSS-AF, 52-2. ll

6 7 t 9 t0 ll t2 t3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 'r)
z)

rd.,773.
witrs" As orplainedin sectionIu.A(l), i4fa this cascinvolvcscompaition for "dcsigD is and.toadm4 shots,"not individrul DRAM salcs,Thatcompetition driveulargclyby rhe maflIfacfirers suchasDell aboutfirnuc DRAM priccsand of expcc'tations Intel ard computcr availability. Rss, t 13,Hartilton Decl,,sxs.89, 109ard 159. Wcll awareof tbatfrct, tb pricesandprojectpojectionsin orderto block a competitive to Defadaits conspired elanatc 'transitiolts. This fu a tbst thatcncd thek *oligopolf contrclovcr DRAM technologr cilrant Petroleum Co.,495 of classicexamplc antitust injury. &e, e.g.,AtlanticRtclfreldCo. v. UStl. u.s. 32t,334 0990) (holdingthatro showantitust injury, thc plaimitrs injury mustbc "of tbe Corp. v. PuebloBowl-&Mat, 4pe that theantitust lawswereintnded to $eve!lti); Brwtswtck i 429u.s. 4n, 489 QnT. see allp clunpagne Metals,458F.3d e 1087 l(nevelbaodDairies 9t8 Inc.,2?28.3d979, (9thCir. 2000).e v. Kr$ Foods,

D.
judgnent with in of no argumnt support its motionfor suormary Hynix makcs scparde at Hynix. SbaHynix lvdem. 20 n.80. Hynix's motionas to rcspcct Rrmhrs's otbcrclaimsagainst to tboseclaimsslpuld bedcniedfor tbe rsons setou in this bricfe Rambrsfinther notes it bastborougfly analyzed antitrustinjury qucstion respotu3c to in thc that DisnissingR mbus'shre PriceFixing Motim fu Suunary Adiudlcation theDefendants' Cause ofAction, at p,p.1G20.
6652515.1

24 25 26

28

-19-

TO OPFOSITrON I{YND('S MSJRE FAILUREOF PR@F AS TO AU.EGED ILLEGAL AGREEMENT

o
I 2 3 4
f

IV.

CONCLUSION are evil cartels "the zupreme of antitrust." Courtrecentlyobserved, As thc U.S. Supreme

AP,540U.5.398,408 (2004). Ine. VerizonCommc'n" v. LawOficesof CurtisY. Trtulw, bas the Because fixing ofprices, outputandmarteB by cartels no plausibleefficiency justification,the Courlsbavclongregarded e.g,'NCAA vcartelbehavior asperse unlawfirl" See, (1984)("Restrictions priceandouFul arethc on U.S. Bo*d of Regents,,l68 85, 107-08 to Act paradigmatic of examples rcstsaints tade thd the Sherman wasintended prohibit.'); of

8 9 l0 ll l2 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 18 19 20
.,I

of Ilnited Swesv. Alston,974F.2d 1206,1208(9th Cir. 199) ("Pricefxiug is illegal regardless justifi catioff offredthercfor.'). pro-competitive the rutes.As Hynix Vice Pr$ident Tabrizi welt demonstates wisdomof these This case

RSS,t 14. As partof tbatefrort,tbe Defendaots untawfully in c their pricing andproduction decisions criticalmoments order!o influencethe coordinated and The and ofOEMs andchipsamanufactr.rers. expected designchoices productroadrnaps the resultof their effortsrrasRDRAM's failrre to become domimnt memorystaodard. intended disagree.Thejury mustdecide. Hynix's motionshouldbedenid. Thc Defendants

DATED: January26,2009

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2U
RE OF AS TO OPPOSITION rm.lx'S MSJ FAlLl.rRE PROOF T0 AIIEGED ILLEGALAGnEEMENT

for AttomeYs Plaindf RAMBUSINC.