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: Dan3 who wrote (44930)	6/18/2000 7:59:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dan, Please review the whole story. 20% of profits for IP might or might not be cheap, but 20% of the profits for 60/5000 of the IP is not cheap. Rambus want 20% of the profits when it owns 0.01% of the necessary IP. If you own the patent for time delay windshield wipers, should you get 20% of the profits from the sale of every car? This is a very good analogy, and is why I consider the Toshiba deal to be weird. The settlement appears to be way out of proportion. Rambus position as an IP company puts the whole system of checks and balances out of whack. DRAM manufacturers can't cross license with them or sue them, because Rambus has no product. Scumbria

To: Dan3 who wrote (44930)	6/18/2000 8:38:00 PM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

"If you own the patent for time delay windshield wipers, should you get 20% of the profits from the sale of every car?" If u did that, nobody would licence it and cars would go without such a feature. The IP owner needs to maximise profits by setting the price at the appropriate level. The potential licence can take it or leave it, depending on their own assessment of the technology. Judging by the number of significant companies that have taken up Rambus licences, it appears that they judge the technology to be valuable and worthy of a 1.5% or so stake of the selling price.