Technical analysis for shorts & longs 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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Technical analysis for shorts & longs

SPY 692.73

+0.5%

Jan 26 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Johnny Canuck who wrote (32401)	5/22/2001 1:07:35 AM
From: Johnny Canuck	Read Replies (1) of 70079

Reply from RMBS investor relations: The contracts that Rambus has with SDRAM/DDR licensees continue to be valid and binding contracts. What these licensees may be thinking we cannot anticipate. The contracts are based on the totality of our worldwide patent portfolio, not on just the 4 patents involved in the Infineon litigation. If Rambus secures an infringement verdict, for instance, in Germany, we would then have an injunction against Infineon for any production in Germany. Since that location is approximately 40% of their manufacturing, they would need to secure a license in order to continue in that location. I can't comment on what they might do in other locations. Our litigation costs for the quarter ended in March were a little over $7M. We cannot anticipate exactly what our future litigation costs will be because there are unknowns as to what future motions might be required, etc. We have stated that we are prepared to spend what it will take to defend our patents. We have a trial against Micron in Delaware that is anticipated to begin around the end of September. Our trial in California against Hyundai is expected to be scheduled sometime in 2002. We announced that we have a licensee for our SerDes cell, which is a technology that works with backplanes and routers. We cannot reveal the licensee by name as we are under non-disclosure. It will be up to the licensee to make some sort of announcement when an actual product is developed with this technology. Investor Relations Harry Lew wrote: > > I just listened to the mid-quarter conference call >update. I noticed that > there were no questions put forward on the impact of the court ruling on > current licensing agreements. > > Could you clarify the following issues for me? In light >of the current > ruling, is there anticipation that some or all current >Rambus licensees who > signed agreement that apply specifically to SDRAM will >stop payment till the > outstanding litigation is resolved? If not anticipated, >is it legally > possible under existing licensing agreements? > > It is my understanding that a negative ruling in the >United States would not > have an impact on other jurisdictions (ie ... Europe and >Japan) if Rambus > patent infringement claims were to upheld in those >jurisdictions. So a > company manufacturing in a jurisdiction where Rambus does >not have a patent > that has been upheld could ship into the United States, >if the current > patent judgement in the United States is upheld. Would >this be true? > > Could your give some guidance on the amount of money that >will need to be > set aside for litigation in the next few quarters given >that Rambus has > cases coming up in Italy and Germany in the next two >months, plus the appeal > in the United States. Are they anymore patent >infringement suits > outstanding besides the ones in Italy and the one in >Germany and what are > the trial start dates? > > Can you give more detail on the new non-PC application >that Rambus has > licensed its technology for in this quarter? Networking >has been mentioned > as a new area of research for Rambus in the last few >conference calls. > > Harry Lew

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next