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: gnuman who wrote (44862)	6/18/2000 9:50:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Gene, just a platform for infringing products does not infringe on the IP, but my guess is that any chip sets will have to have communication links which might infringe. 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. A "platform" per say could be as simple as a box or a plane on which other elements are assembled. When this platform needs to be unique and the operation of the chips depends on unique parameters of that platforms, it may involve innovations that are patentable. I remember in the late 50', while doing my M.Sc, I ahd to use the first tunnel diodes that came out of GE at the time, I was building coincidence gates of about a nanosecond, it turned out that the "platform" was extremely important due to parasitic inductance, I finally developed a (then) unique way of soldering the ground to a large copper plate (without burning the diode in the process), that approach could have been patented (it was not). When the platform itself is an "active" element of the design (since at these pseeds much attention must be paid to standing waves, signal reflections etc, particularly since both the rise time and decay tim of the clock pulses are used), thus the "protocol" controlling such design is quite non obvious (you cant use the same techniques used in the days of magnetic core memories when signals where huge and rise time in the microsecond range rater than the nanosecond and below range was used). One of the reasons for putting L2 on the processor itself is to avoid connectivity and communication problems between processors and storage devices. The mere fact that all CPU producers are adopting L2 is exactly the problems that RMBS is addressing. Proving, by the way that RMBS soliutions are far from "obvious". Zeev Zeev

To: gnuman who wrote (44862)	6/18/2000 11:53:00 AM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Gene: If it can be proven that you did not take the steps to protect your IP franchise, then the validity of the claims in your patent(s) are weakened, or even invalidated. Signing licensing agreements, even if they "give away" fees on past shipments, does not equate with non-protection. Simply trying to get people to negotiate licensing agreements is consistent with protecting your franchise, even if the terms you are demanding are inconsistent from one party to another. This latter scenario that you have raised is more subject to unfair trade practices litigation than it is to IP law. Wanton neglect of your franchise includes ignoring infringers, delay in responding to the USPO, not applying for sufficient coverage (and that one is debatable), etc. BP