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: Dave B who wrote (40551)	4/21/2000 11:06:00 AM
From: Ian Anderson	Respond to of 93625

The other thing to note is that Rambus has a filing date in 1990. So there is absolutely no point in quoting anything from with a filling date after that. It could well be that Rambus are able to invalidate some of the subsequent patents, if they can demonstrate that their prior art was not properly considered by the examiners.

To: Dave B who wrote (40551)	4/21/2000 11:14:00 AM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 93625

Re: Rambus patent issues.....As with most disputes of this type, there are factors about which none of us are yet aware. Even if we read the record until we are blue in the face, we will not be able to know everything. It is not just the record, but also the statements made, notes recorded, admissions, refutations, unknown time lines, etc. We can't truly see the picture formed by the jigsaw puzzle yet because we don't have all the pieces. What little I can deduce from distant perspective has more to do with the tactics being taken by Rambus and its opponents. Rambus is being very aggresive, very dogmatic in its position that Hitachi has violated the patents and must cease right now! The fact that the ITC and other trade bodies are being involved demonstrates to me that Rambus believes they have the advantage at this point in time and intend to force action and confrontation as quickly as possible on their selected targets. This is an excellent strategy if you hold the cards. I can't begin to determine if they hold the cards or not, but either they have a pretty good hand or it is a great bluff!

To: Dave B who wrote (40551)	4/21/2000 3:08:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Dave B; Re patents; My reason for going into the patents is purely for my own research. I doubt that the Hitachi &c., guys read this thread. Right now we have a situtation where the Rambus side of the patent dispute is being publicly aired, in that the dramreview.com website has a very reasonable description of the patents involved. Earlier, I showed that that website was closely connected to Rambus itself. There is therefore some reason to believe that their interpretation of the patent issue is similar to the ones held by Rambus. The reason all this is of interest is that there is a large divergence between what has been posted on this thread regarding Rambus' patents applying to DDR and SDRAM, and what dramreview.com has to say about it. I find that dramreview has by far the more realistic understanding. And my searches of the patent literature are supporting that contention. People on this thread have been suggesting that the basic concept of DDR, clocking data on both edges, the use of multiplexors in order to double a data path frequency, and the use of synchronizing registers in a memory, is a Rambus patent. These are very basic ideas to SDRAM and DDR, and if they were patented it would be very significant. I stated that Rambus did not have (valid) patents on these subjects and that prior art would cover it, if it wasn't patented elsewhere. Now the interesting thing is that DramReview indicates that Rambus is not claiming a patent in any of those areas, this strengthens what I said with regard to Rambus' patent position. So far, my search of the patent literature has strongly supported my stand on these issues. This has to be taken into account in people's estimates of how much royalties Rambus would be due with regard to its DRAM patents. What I showed above is that the most basic patents in the area predate Rambus, or are in the hands of competitors. After I have done with this stage, I will go through the details of what dramreview says are Rambus' important patents. But first, I want to establish that what dramreview says are reasonable limits to what Rambus has any hope of controlling. I will soon post some links and numbers that will show that the extent of Rambus patents in SDRAM and DDR is quite small compared to the extent of patents controlled by the memory makers. You don't sound at all sarcastic to me, and I appreciate your criticism. I know that what I am tackling here is a big problem, and I don't expect to complete it very quickly, as I stated before on this thread. What I am doing here is providing an analysis of the patent situation that is not the standard Rambus version. Where else can you get it? My take on the situation is unlikely to match that of Hitachi or anybody else. Maybe you guys should start looking through those musty old records, and get your own interpretations of what is going on. -- Carl