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 84.85

-2.7%

10:10 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mishedlo who wrote (52794)	9/7/2000 3:33:04 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) of 93625

Misheldo, Good post! A couple of points for clarification: "One month after Dell consent decree Rambus announced it's resignation from JEDEC in a letter." This DELL matter may simply be a coincidence. I noticed no supporting material was provided to substantiate a causal link between the resignation and the DELL case. I do not think it matters ultimately but it colors the case. "Rambus failed to disclose a specific patent issued prior to the resignation letter.The patent covered aspect of dual clock edge operation. JEDEC had discussed aspects of dual clock edge operation. JEDEC later made certain aspects of dual clock edge operation a part of the DDR Standard." " 2)This seems like a silly complaint. If the patent had already issued it was a matter of public record and is considered "published". There would have been no need for RAMBUS to do anything more. Also, it has been pointed out that RAMBUS had filed European patents and these patents are published 18 months after being filed. So it seems the information in the patents was public prior to 1996. Moreover, the Hitachi answer to the ITC action stated that Hitachi had a many license agreements with RAMBUS: Hitachi License agreements with Rambus: October 30, 1992 February 8, 1995 June 28, 1996 June 1, 1998 November 12, XX Thus, it appears that RAMBUS had already licensed most of the big players as early as the end of 1992. It is hardly a stretch to assume that RAMBUS was licensing their technology under non disclosure agreements and that technology transfers were taking place outside of the JEDEC meetings. Finally, if JEDEC included DDR clocking in its standard after a US patent was already issued, it is their own fault. I think they knew all along about this matter and chose to include it because they thought that RAMBUS was going to push RDRAM and not DDR. In short, they thought they could get away with using part of Rambus' IP. These conclusions are highly probable given Farhad Tabrizi's statements relating to DDR and SLDRAM made in 1997. These companies were looking for a way around RAMBUS' patents even then. (6/27/97) scribe.fool.com zdnet.com JK

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next