Hi sylvester80; You wrote: "The HP patent has been mentioned before (maybe not here but in other boards) and the RMBS patent predates the HP patent. RMBS patent - 1990. HP - 1991."
Not that anyone doubts your complete veracity, [by the way, your post where you finally admitted the "truth" about Timna is here: #reply-14481735, my collation is here: #reply-14483598 ] but how about a link to one of those posts on this board or on any other with time and date stamps, and showing the HP patent?
By the way, the article also suggested that the Rambus dropped the Hyundai ITC action in return for Hyundai not fighting the Rambus change of venue request. I don't believe that'd been reported elsewhere either.
You're continuing your inclination to ignore all possible pessimistic news, and only look at the good side. At the same time, you hint at having insider knowledge as to Rambus' future actions. I have to suspect that you work for Rambus and are dumping your stock options onto the market as fast as you can.
Also, you've got the dates on the HP patent wrong, and of course, erred in Rambus' favor. Per this DramReview link, the HP patent is from 1989, while the Rambus patent was applied for in 1990:
dramreview.com
-- Carl
P.S. Looking around for the above links, I came upon this one, which long time collectors of Rambus BS may find amusing:
February 29, 2000
Rambus Inc. Announces Five RDRAM Suppliers in Volume Production
Hyundai and Infineon join market leaders Samsung, NEC and Toshiba in volume production of Rambus memory products.
rambus.com |
