SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (44861)6/18/2000 9:30:00 AM
From: gnuman  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93625
 
Zeev, In my hypothetical situation, forget the memory chip makers for a moment. Both sides of the bus are theoretically infringing. My hypothetical premise was for the chip set companies, all of whom provide a platform for and are assumed to include the IP technology. Doesn't every chip set maker that supports SDRAM and potentially DDRDRAM provide a platform for products that allegedly infringe yet are potentially a lucrative source of revenues? Can there be different criteria for these companies?
JMHO's



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (44861)6/18/2000 9:58:00 AM
From: Scumbria  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
Zeev,

You are making very strong statements about things you admit you know nothing about.

You said:

RMBS was correct to sue Hitachi, since after a number of years of negotiations, Hitachi with wonton affront, refused to talk any deal, probably used the privileged (confidential information) supplied by RMBS in initiating the negotiations, in their shipping products, while others, like Toshiba, paid licensing fees and royalties.

And then:

You have to undewrstand that RMBS has 87 patents (as listed on the IBM site) and I have not studied these in details, it will take a major effort to study these, and that is beyond the scope of jhat I am going to do on this.

If you are not familiar with Rambus' IP, how do you know that it has been violated?

Scumbria