Mike,
I have tried to go back over the last two days of postings to try and figure out where you get this notion that I have "prejudged" (my term for "BIAS":8) RMBS and found them guilty.
I assume it stems from this post where I explain what I consider "important" in the complete absence of "ALL the facts":
Message 14325531
I assume that you took that post as something more than it was. Which was, again, a response to a question you posed in:
Message 14325374
Wherein someone was quoted describing a principal of estoppel and suggesting that MU would be "estopped" from alleging that RMBS broke JEDEC rules because MU failed to disclose its patents.
In ending that post you asked:
If MU did not disclose its patents is that estoppel.
Any legal comments on estoppel - NightOwl or others?
In reply to YOUR question, I spent half my post trying to explain why the discussion of estoppel made little sense to me without a factual "story" to go with it. Where we apparently got on different tracks was in my description of what I thought was "important". You seem to ignore the point made there that the view was given without all the "facts".
On its face my response relies on the only two facts I am ready to accept as givens, which might, assuming other facts, be relevant to the question of estoppel which YOU posed:
1) RMBS was a participant of JEDEC when it was discussing SDRAM and DDR "related" designs; and
2) JEDEC was, and at all relevant times, has been an open standards body.
These widely reported and, to my knowledge, undisputed facts are the only "facts" I am prepared to accept as "known" at this point.
Please note that absent from this lengthy list of "facts" is any reference to the failure of RMBS to disclose anything. There is no presumption that MU disclosed anything. And there is no reliance whatever on any "rules" or guidelines" of JEDEC or otherwise.
Yes, various parties and posters have been quoted as making "allegations" regarding those and other "facts", but I have no information verifying any of them. That's why I didn't use them in my answer to your question. Or in forming any "BIAS".
Based on my two facts I told you how and why they were considered important and taken into account by me; but at no time did I state or infer that "as a result RMBS would lose" the MU or any litigation. I am not the youngest and brightest turnip on the truck these days. I freely admit that my perception of the 2 lonely facts, may change, or indeed be proven incorrect with the arrival of new facts.
Nevertheless, after doing no more than answering questions that you yourself posed, I am now branded as BIASED because I don't offer up speculation as to scenario's that favor your position. Surely you must be joking.<g>
...In case you aren't let me add this. I don't care what a person's "prejudgments" are. I assume that everyone makes distinctions and perceives the world through eyes other than mine. But I don't consider this negative, a basis for segregation, or even justification for using the "ignore" function on this software. <vbg>
Its certainly a plus in my view if a person's views and judgments are open to change. But if not it doesn't lessen the possibility that I might learn something about their view from an exchange of ideas.
So if my posts here or elsewhere leave you with the notion that I have committed the "sin" of BIAS all I can say is don't worry about it. I have never known a "BIAS" to change a fact.
And if my opinions don't make any sense, then being "unBIASED" won't save them.
0|0 |
