Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fiscally Conservative who wrote (36816)	1/30/2000 3:52:00 PM
From: froland	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Finallythere: One thing about patents is they are not considered strong until they have been successfully defended in court. Rambus has a large but to my knowledge legally untested patent portfolio. If the memory makers cooperate and can prove that technology existed as part of the "common knowledge" prior to Rambus patent filings, they can make a case for invalidating certain Rambus patents. This is where they have to pool their resources and show that certain Rambus patents should not have been granted because the technology was a prior part of the industrys "common pool of knowledge". Given the amounts of money at stake, I can understand why the memory makers would want to take the issue to court before paying out large sums of money as royalties. Both sides probably knew it would get down to this. Remember, QCOM didn't explode until after its patent portfolio was validated by the courts. froland.

To: Fiscally Conservative who wrote (36816)	1/30/2000 5:29:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Finaly, you should understand that the efforts of the DRAM coalition will be to show that prior to the date of invention of RMBS' technology, what they invented was in the public domain, or other DRAMs maker have written (and unadulterated) records that those innovation were invented in the industry prior to RMBS' invention. That is where the "proof" of the timing of the invention is critical, since in this country, fortunately, the law is still "first to invent", not first to file for a patent. The DRAM people may make an effort (and thus the cooperation) to show that some of their people were first to invent and attempt to invalidate RMBS' four patents. Zeev