SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin
RMBS 95.57+0.7%Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Zeev Hed who wrote (44906)6/18/2000 6:36:00 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) of 93625
 
Hi Zeev Hed; Re your statement: "Dan, I think you are living in a dream world. If you were a member of LES, you would know that IP commands about 25% of the "financial benefits" (quite a cloudy definition, I'll grant you). 20% of profits for IP is bloody cheap."

This is true, but it doesn't have much to do with Dan3's statement. All of the memory makers expend massive amounts of effort to design their chips, and this is all IP. The result is thousands of patents, all of which must be licensed in order to allow manufacturing to go on. The vast majority of the licensing is done as cross licensing, but that in no way allows us to eliminate the value of those cross licenses when calculating the total amount that a DRAM maker pays for IP.

The cross licensing agreements act to make it more expensive for new companies to break into the memory game. As an example, look at the lawsuit that Infineon is currently involved with.

Each memory maker is cross licensed with something like 6 other companies, each of which owns many, many more DRAM patents than Rambus. Why should the one patent owned by Rambus be so much more significant than the 1000s that had to be obtained through cross licensing?

-- Carl
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext