this guy is rather eloquent the way he expresses, what a lot of us are thinking.
"The ENews Article smells like a trial balloon.
Consider:
INTC-P4/RDRAM being aggressively ramped, AMD/DDR suffering delays, Software Apps being re-compiled for P4, Semiconductor
cycle nearing it's bottom, RDRAM prices and yields improving, RDRAM manufacturers making money and gaining experience,
SDRAM overproduced and losing money.
When the SDRAM gut clears, it's going to be a second generation memory technology unable to command a premium. RDRAM/DDR
will be first generation technology. AMD/DDR are behind and have problems while INTC/RDRAM are ahead and already dealt with
their teething issues last year with the i820/i850. The Japanese TV and Set-Top mfgrs are all using RDRAM and their products are
currently available in Japan awaiting GA to the rest of the world.
As P4 recompiled apps become widely available, the P4 performance lead with respect to memory bandwidth intesive apps will
become widely known. The argument that AMD/DDR/SDRAM or P3/SDRAM are at parity with P4/RDRAM won't hold water
because my P200 with 64meg EDO-RAM has all the horsepower needed for MSOffice apps. If news of that becomes widely known
AMD/DDR/SDRAM will suffer because buyers needing to run ordinary office apps will not pay a premium for first generation PC's.
Why buy an Athlon/DDR/SDRAM for my Office apps when I can get an P2/P3 with INTC inside for less and both have far more
horsepower than the Office apps require?
I've heard some suggestions that at least some of the DDR problems can be solved through the use of higher quality passive
components, especially capacitors. I suspect those same higher quality capacitors are also unavailable at reasonable prices in
quantity on the spot markets. I don't know much about polystyrene or other higher quality caps but just try to purchase a few million
tantalum caps on the spot market and see what happens.
I suspect the author of this electronic publication which is in all probability desperate for cash (ad revenue from Hyundai, Micron,
Infineon, AMD, etc.) was probably guided to request specific documents. I Don't suspect for a minute he randomly requested this
document(s).
Did the author even know his selective cut-and-paste quotes with color commentary regarding RMBS and SLDRAM issues are
irrelevant? SyncLink DRAM (SLDRAM) is dead. SLDRAM postdates SDRAM and I've never heard mention of SynchLink DRAM being
at issue in any of the litigation.
The fact that the author only provided select snippets rather than an entire memo, email etc, is suspicious. Even then, I don't see
where the article provided a "smoking gun" regarding prior-art, RMBS violating JDEC rules or fraudulently obtaining IP with respect
to any of the litigation. Otherwise, the author would have said this/these were the rules at the time and here's how RMBS acted in
violation of those rules.
Unless the author or others come up with more convincing evidence, I believe the author is acting as a usefull idiot for one or more
of the litigants who want to float a trial balloon, test its market effect on RMBS and use that feedback to assist in a decision to
press forward or settle. If RMBS price holds (allowing for it's customary volatility), that would suggest the market jury didn't bite and
perhaps a trial jury wouldn't either.
I think at least one of the three have shakey knees, sweaty palms and feel a strong urge to relieve themselves. I don't think its
Appleton/MU. More likely it's Hyundai or Infineon.
Speaking of Appleton/MU, consider QCOM -vs- "The Cellular Industry" which finally got down to QCOM -vs- ERICY. Where's ERICY
now?
froland."
Message 15370180 |
