Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 95.26

+3.1%

Nov 14 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (51761)	8/29/2000 3:35:58 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) of 93625

Ten, I was not in on those JEDEC meetings and also I am not familiar with what the process and informal agreements during that period which seems to be 1993 to 1995. But here is what I have gathered. (It would be interesting to hear from someone who was actually there at the time.) 1) RAMBUS is a pure IP company and all the JEDEC companies must have known or should have known that fact. 2) It is not clear that JEDEC had well formed policies during that period of time. In fact, it looks like their policies were undergoing change because a manual was introduced containing new procedures relating to patents. So if they had policies or practices they were not wriiten down. Incidently, it is common practice to publish articles in the trade press with new innovations that are in patent pending process. Frequently, this results in copying by the industry and the patent licensing years later after the patents issue. A "patent pending" notice does not entail a disclosure of thae actual subject matter of the patent with any precision. So the JEDEC complaint smells fishy.... 3) No one disputes that JEDEC members did and could collect patent royalties from other JEDEC members. In fact, Texas Instruments was collecting large royalties on its own DRAM patents and suing lots of foreign companies to enforce its patents. 4) It is not clear that RAMBUS had any legal duty to disclose patents in process. It seems at the time that RAMBUS was more focused on RDRAM as the choice for future scalable memory systems and had discarded the DDR as a stop gap and non scalable memory component. 5) In 1996 Intel picked RDRAM as it choice for a scalable memory solution after a full year of evaluation. RAMBUS was clearly betting on RDRAM and the issues of SDRAM and DDR were on the back burner. 6)The Rambus SDRAM and DDR patent claims did not issue until 1999 and early 2000. Like it or not that is OK within the existing patent law. 7) there are 8 patents being challenge out about 90 patents issued and another 90 patents in process of application. 8)http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000829/tc/micron_rambus_1.html ``designed to exact essentially nonnegotiable licenses bearing exorbitant royalties from these manufacturers.'' Micron seems to be objecting to the royalty rate. 1-2% is hardly an exorbitant royalty. .5% per patent infringed is not unusual in the semiconductor industry. It looks like they are complaining about RAMBUS holding all the patents and about having to pay exorbitant patents. They simply do not want to share the memory businees with a new gorilla. JMO

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next