Oh, those Jazio, I looked at them last year. Nothing impressive, when you run a pseudo random access system. I am surprised that you are still not grabbing the concept and the importance that future applications of computers will be using not single data but in essence, many "continuous streams" of data. This may not be where computer goes, and I am sure you know better than I that "future". As for the patents, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but what the intent of an inventor was and what is the constructive language of a claim have little to do with each other. That is why I always write my specifications myself, but never touch the wording of the claims. If I get involved with the wording of the claims, I will be so biased by the specific application I have in mind that I'll be blinded to the wealth of other potentialities the teaching of a patent has. In the case of RMBS, they patented a register residing on the CMOS memory chip, the fact that you think they wanted to use it only to allow for variability of data strings (or call it variability of "time of flight"), while the SDRAM modern use of the same register is to allow different speed grades is completely irrelevant, the construction of the register is patented by RMBS, period. Until the specific claims are declared invalid by an appropriate jurisdiction, if you want to use the construction to condition pulses of different heights (trying to get possibly around the QSR latents?) fine, you can get a method patent of your own, but you will still be infringing on RMBS patent if you make, use or sell the construction of the register patented.
Zeev |
