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: Zeev Hed who wrote (44739)	6/16/2000 9:46:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev, extortion There is nothing wrong with collecting royalties for legitimate intellectual property, within the framework of the law. Jim's comment was describing something closer to extortion. the ones that do not sign up get to pay treble damages and get no license. Scumbria

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (44739)	6/17/2000 12:29:00 PM
From: multicollinearity	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Re Zeev: <Scumbria, are you calling me a thief? Extortion is thievery is it not? I make my living selling my own IP, and am slightly miffed and your offensive line as it relates to creators of IP. We are not different than musicians and writers> Hello Zeev, I am an author of college textbooks and was also disturbed by Scumbria's remark. I spend about 5 years working on a text and feel that I am entitled to compensation through the payment of royalties. Is Scumbria implying that this is a dishonest expectation and that all should be allowed to freely copy one's finished product? Best, Multico

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (44739)	6/17/2000 2:09:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

<Scumbria, are you calling me a thief? ...I make my living selling my own IP> Never heard about your own IP, and therefore cannot judge you on thievery. However, the Rambus is attempting a fraud of IP. It becomes apparent from reading the "reviews" dramreview.com They refer to US 5,953,262 : "A synchronous semiconductor memory device having at least one memory section which includes a plurality of memory cells, the memory device comprises: a programmable register to store a value which is representative of a delay time after which the memory device responds to a read request." It is important to note that the abovementioned patent is in fact a so-called continuation of US5841580, which in turn is a "continuation" of US5638334, which in turn is a "continuation" of US5513327, which in turn is a "continuation" of US5319755. Upon inspection of claims within the US5319755, the "programmable register to store a value which is representative of a delay time after which the memory device responds to a read request" nowhere can be found. If someone is able to find any clause related to "programmable delay of responds", fell free to post here. It is apparent that Rambus lawyers found a leak in the patent system to twist and patch original claims in the process of "continuation", where the most important things (originally overlooked, and therefore do not constitute any invention) are added later. Not mentioning that the programmable delay in the Rambus device are used to compensate for propagation delays in transmission lines while the programmable delay in SDRAM is used to better utilize the yield spectrum in manufacturing.