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: Harry Sharp who wrote (38957)	3/27/2000 6:46:00 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Rambus Takes Legal Aim at Sega, Hitachi (ON24 via COMTEX)--Claiming patent infringement of its chip design, California-based Rambus is asking the U.S. federal government to launch an investigation which could impact the sale of Sega's popular Dreamcast video game system. Story Filed: Monday, March 27, 2000 2:10 PM EST Length: 1 minutes, 4 seconds. For audio/video: on24.com (Requires REAL audio/video plugin) Company: Rambus Inc. (NASDAQ:RMBS)

To: Harry Sharp who wrote (38957)	3/27/2000 9:51:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: The "cool post"--- its not really so cool! This is just some more anti-RAMBUS coalition FUD IMO. My understanding is that RAMBUS applied for these patents in 1990 and 1991 and that they withdrew from JEDEC in 1994 or 1995 after JEDEC wanted them to make their patents public and licenses free. The RAMBUS patents are very well documented with considerable prior art references so I will be surprised if there is anything fraudulent about them. Individual features of a patent ( such as double rate clocking) do not need to be unique to obtain a patent. A patent may be a unique combination of non-unique features that result in the solution of a performance or packaging problem. For example, the shape of a set of skiis may be patentable if it result in an improvement in speed or cornering. The same with binding s that reduce the danger of breaking a leg or a knee. Mainframe cache is usually either SRAM, or ECL type memory components. These components are quite different in behavior than DRAM. The application of double rate clocking to DRAM may very well be patentable if (as it seems) it was not used publically before and solves a problem not yet solved by the industry or presents a new usefulness ( which it certainly appears to do). The following is a example of how non uniqueness of elements of a patents are permissable because they achieve a new utility. A famous patent was issued for the use of asperin in Pig feed. The patent was found to be valid because the pigs felt better ate more and got bigger before being slaughtered. Later someone used Tylenol with the same result and it was found to infringe the original patent. (This is from recollection so a few details may be wrong). :)