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 (44825)	6/17/2000 11:43:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 93625

Z.Hed, <One of the earlier continuation covers the register, and the 755 covers the programmable register.> Are you alluding that now EVERYONE who uses registers are obliged to pay royalties to Rambus? Everything is covered by Rambus patents for now! Here is another one from Rambus "I-property", again from dramreview.com ===quote begins============================ Rambus patent No. 5915105, claim 36 reads: "A synchronous memory device having at least one memory section which includes a plurality of memory cells, wherein the memory device receives first and second external clock signals and outputs data on a bus, the memory device comprises: a plurality of output drivers, each output driver being coupled to the bus to output data on the bus synchronously with respect to the first and second external clock signals." Examining each element of the claim individually and comparing it to the diagram shows a high correspondence between the claim and what is shown on the diagram. ... - wherein the memory device receives first and second external clock signals (The DDR block diagram shows two clocks, CLK and /CLK. These are the two complementary input clock signals which can equivalently be labeled the first and second clock signals)" === end quote ================ What a "brilliant" twist!!! So, from this day, any design that uses two clocks which certainly "can equivalently be labeled the first and second clock signals" are violating Rambus patents? And are subject to extortion of royalties to "geniuses" from Rambus? What a nonsense, excuse me. Or you have a different opinion on this clocking issue?