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: Ali Chen who wrote (39894)	4/14/2000 10:31:00 AM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 93625

Hmmm... maybe Hitachi will hire the "dream team" for its legal defense.

To: Ali Chen who wrote (39894)	4/14/2000 3:24:00 PM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

Ali, I am not a lawyer. As you must know, in that area _anything_ can happen, just recall OJ etc. For every reasonable person it is an apparent nonsense to claim the rights to 2->1 multiplexor. Maybe Texas Instruments should sue Rambus for infringement on SN74L157 circuit and request royalties :) :) I didn't ask you for a legal explanation. I asked you for a technical explanation: "Believe me, everyone here would absolutely adore you if you could explain this in clear, precise, technical terms showing exactly what the claims are and why they're not valid." You must be able to supply cogent technical explanations for both the Rambus claims and why they're invalid since you said: "All claims in their original application are nonsense, childish bubbling, at least in the original form, when commands and data were going to share the same bus. ... none of their claims are in use in current RIMM memories (maybe the multiplexor, what an invention!), at least most of the key elements are not claimed in their "patents", - windows crossing and inter-domain synchronization for example. All Rambus patents are about few chips on wires shorter than half-clock flight time, or 4-5" long only." BTW, you didn't address the opportunity to sue IBM for making DDR... short memory or what? Since it's been discussed on the board a number of times, especially in the last week, it did not appear to be a serious question. Go back and read the posts from myself, Tenchusatsu, and Jim Kelley (I think it was Jim) re: why they sued Hitachi. If they prevail against Hitachi, then they certainly will contact all of the other vendors. Note that I'm giving you the credit in this discussion of at least understanding that this is the way patent lawsuits are handled -- you sue a single company and then leverage the results into the remaining companies. If that's new news to you...well, good luck. I am trying to restrain myself from insults here, but are you serious? Why shall I waste my time explaining the obvious? Do you know that ARM is in embedded controller business, and not in personal computing? I'm glad to see that you restrained yourself. Insults more often reflect the insecurities of the originator, not the character of the insulted. And in this case, would reinforce the impression that your just not getting it. Of course ARM is in the embedded controller business. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!! They went off and created new businesses with their own products ideas and designs. They didn't try to copy anyone elses designs and then take away their customers. In the simplest business school terms, "me-too" companies rarely succeed, or at least gain significant marketshare, unless the dominant company commits a fatal error. Intel has not committed any fatal errors. Not if a person happen to have a grenade launcher:) Are you seriously saying that you think AMD has the metaphorical equivalent of a grenade launcher? Dave