Thanks to everyone for the good words, and to Dave for organizing the very convivial lunch meeting. We, too, are sorry you couldn't be there, Woodside.
With regard to patents, I believe there are two key issues that govern their significance for a business whose value and fortunes depend upon them:
1. The number and quality of patents owned doesn't count as much as whether some other entity owns any patent without which the product in question can not be (legally) made and/or sold. I gave this example on another BB - if you had patents on handlebars, saddles, frames and tires, you still could not make/sell bicylces if someone else owned a patent on the wheel, without acquiring a license from the latter.
I see Rambus as beeing in the latter position, by the way.
2. The effective business-significant life of a patent can usually be extended beyond the expiration date of the original patent by related innovations. This is, of course, especially true in rapidly evolving high technology fields. By the year 2010, it will thus probably be inadequate to build anything competitive based on Rambus' earliest patents.
However, as is always the case, by that time new technology may have come along - just as Rambus' has done today - to render Rambus' current technology obsolete. With Rambus' cash generating power and apparently good understanding of these larger issues, I believe we have a good chance that, like MSFT, CSCO, et al, it will re-invent itself periodically to keep ahead.
Bernard |
