Here's an interesting perspective on what the decisions mean in terms of when a company should halt the shredding of documents.
My understanding is that the court basically said just that: If you are going to sue someone, don't shred a bunch of documents right before that. The implication is that something among the destroyed documents might have been evidence that may have invalidated the patents or otherwise provide reason why Micron and Hynix shouldn't have to pay to use the technology.
So if I understand: the courts were unhappy with RAMBUS destroying documents that may (or may not) have been relevant to the cases? It seems that they are saying the documents (in this article) related to the lawsuits but I question How would anyone know? If the documents were destroyed then it would be hard to tell. I wonder if the fix for this would be to require companies to hold on to any related (even marginally) documents beyond the lifetimes of the associated patents?
The court concluded that Rambus had at least two "shred days" when it destroyed 9,000 to 18,000 pounds worth of documents. What got shredded? I don't know. I kind of doubt anybody knows. But the court's point appears to be, if you are getting ready to file some lawsuits, don't destroy documents that may be evidence. Rambus, of course, maintains that it destroyed the documents long before planning to sue Micron and Hynix.
I am wondering why these known documents (if they are/were so important to litigation) were not entered into a previous lawsuit and therefore part of the legal records already. I am not sure what the issue is: did someone find new pertinent documents and destroy them (but told someone) or did the existence of these documents come to light some other way. It seems a little confusing.. any clarification possible?