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 90.56

-4.4%

Dec 17 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ian@SI who started this subject	2/7/2001 12:17:32 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) of 93625

Re: Rambus vs. Infineon Docket 87 Infineon is arguing that Rambus should not be allowed its claims on the SDRAM features it has patented because the original specifications described RDRAM. This is a clever argument by Infineon lawyers to strip Rambus of any rights to its programmable memory delay patent claims. The programmable delay embedded in the dram was originated by Rambus. If they are able to get the judge to buy this "narrow interpretation" argument then they can escape paying royalties on SDRAM and DDR. Infineon is trying to restrict the definition of a "bus" to "multiplexed Bus" as found in the Rdram filing specifications. There are prior art "bus" discussions found in the the original specifications. The programmable dram delay is not dependent on any specific type bus and thus can be the subject of an independent claim within the "divisions" and "continuations" of the original patent filing. A patent "continuation" is easy to obtain and allows the patentee to write new claims while retaining the filing date of the older patent. It is clear that the patent office viewed the original patent filing as a collection of inventions rather than a single invention. Rambus was allowed to file divisional applications up until the time the first patent issued. I am not a lawyer but the infineon argument is incorrect albeit clever. The purpose of the divisions and continuations is to allow the many inventions described by the original Rdram filing to be claimed and patented. The programmable memory delay and the many features originated by Rambus that are being used in DDR are in fact not dependent on the bus type of the memory. Thus, these can be independent claims and apparently. The fact that SDRAM does not use a "multiplexed bus" is not really relevant to Rambus' other independent claims. JMO

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next