Ö¿Ö,
In fact, one or more of the companies currently paying RMBS have said they will continue to pay......... I'm not aware of any of these companies publicly stating they intend to pursue this type of action (to stop paying)........***
Its must be hard to distinguish "fact" from FUD I guess. All I can recall any DDR/SDRAM licensee saying is that they have no "current" plans to change their payment arrangements. Nothing definitive about what they "will" do in the future. Not that I'd recommend believing anything they say about what they plan to do.<g>
RMBS held a CC after losing the court case with INFX & did not warn (per Reg FD) that loss of royalty payments for SDRAM & DDR was a potential outcome........ or that the outcome of the court case had increased the risk of this event......... *** ..... in fact if it was already disclosed in any SEC filing or other official publication, I am sure that certain media would have published numerous articles beating it to death....... and Team FUD would have posted it here ad nauseam.
Here's the 10Q disclosure:
biz.yahoo.com
***potential adverse determinations in current and potential additional litigation involving the Company's intellectual property; costs associated with protecting the Company's intellectual property; changes in Company strategies; foreign exchange rate fluctuations or other changes in the international business climate; and general economic trends. A more detailed discussion of risks faced by the Company is set forth in the Company's 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC. The Company assumes no obligation to update the forward-looking statements or the discussion of risks.
From the 11/30/00 10K:
edgar-online.com
Factors Affecting Future Results
Current and Potential Litigation. As the Company has extended its licensing program to SDRAM-compatible products, it has increasingly become involved in litigation either instigated by the Company or by the potential licensee. As of September 30, 2000, the Company was in litigation with three such potential SDRAM-compatible licensees. In each of these cases, the Company has claimed infringement of its patents whereas the potential licensees have generally sought damages and a determination that the Rambus patents at suit are invalid and not infringed. While the Company's objective in all these cases is to achieve settlements resulting in SDRAM-compatible licenses, there can be no assurance that such settlements will take place, that the Company will prevail if there is no settlement or that additional litigation will not result from future efforts by the Company to obtain additional SDRAM-compatible licenses. In addition, future litigation may be necessary to enforce the Company's patents and other intellectual property rights, to protect the Company's trade secrets, or to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, and there can be no assurance that the Company would prevail in any future litigation. Any such litigation, whether or not determined in the Company's favor or settled by the Company, is costly and could divert the efforts and attention of the Company's management and technical personnel from normal business operations, which would have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determinations in litigation could result in the loss of the Company's proprietary rights, subject the Company to significant liabilities, require the Company to seek licenses from third parties or prevent the Company from licensing its technology, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.
Not that I'd recommend believing anything that a company adjudged a FRAUD might put in its SEC filings.
Ö¿Ö:
Apparently you are confusing KG4 & TEAM FUD's false allegations with reality. Perhaps one of you could refresh my memory with precisely what I said about my area of expertise.
Sorry but I don't think I should have to "refresh" this for you. After all, its a lot less complicated than technical descriptions of a memory "Bank", and we're only talking about your knowledge of your own "statements" developed in the last 3 days, rather than "statements" you were given in the course of an education 20 or more years ago.
Ö¿Ö:
I believe I only briefly mentioned being an auditor with some experience exposing fraud which was discussed in regard to my POV of Team FUD............ but there was no mention of specific areas of expertise............ in fact, there was only sufficient information to give some context to my POV........... no more, no less......... although you & KG4, ET AL, have certainly made rewritten history on the subject.
Lets see. First you need a refresher, then you "believe," but then you recall sufficient, but as yet unlinked, detail to justify such a characterization of the information you previously intended to communicate. Sounds like this FUD thing is endemic.<Ho Ha 8->
In any event I am sure that I can speak for all the local residents when I say that it is comforting to know that you now claim no "expertise" regarding fraud although you have some, as yet undefined, experience exposing same.
...These BB "Handles" do come in handy don't they?<vbg>
0|0 |
