SI
SI
discoversearch

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 94.09-1.2%11:52 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Scumbria who wrote (72104)5/6/2001 9:11:17 AM
From: Dave  Read Replies (2) of 93625
 
Scumbria,

Intel's lawyers find it much easier to cross-license AMD.

As do AMD's. If AMD didn't get the renewal of the broad cross-licensing agreement, AMD would not have access to the Crawford patent.

A large volume of patents is a very effective tool in protecting a company. It is impossible to review 20,000 patents and rigorously compare vs. Intel's designs.

Yes and no. If sued, that company has to identify the design that is infringing upon the patent(s). Usually, when companies send out "infringement letters" they notify the potential infringer of the patent(s) they are alledgedly infringing upon. HOwever, most of the time, the list their entire patent portfolio.

Now, with respect to the large volume. I disagree. We agree that companies need patent protection. The "new wave" in patent law is since nobody knows whether an idea will become valuable is to "patent everything"
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext