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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (45022)	6/19/2000 12:23:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

<RMBS has every right to expect fees from anyone who uses their IP. By calling them blackmailers you really do betray your knowledge of just how fundamental their patents really are.> Rambus _is_ a blackmailer. There is nothing "fundamental" or particularly "intellectual" in their "property". They actually invented something like Plug-and-Play configuration of uniform array of memory chips, stressing always that it can be done without separate chip-select wires. That's ok with me, who cares about those few pins. They also claim a sort of packet-based control protocol for doing this. This is fishy, the packetized controls were around for a while. They also invented a funny clock distribution scheme, when the same wire goes from peripheria to the master and returns back to memory chips. What they invented does not work in reality. The "same wire" clock has to be separated at the memory controller - see i820 scpecs - to exclude fatal misterminated reflections. Therefore it rather is a regular clock-forwarding approach invented by DEC, if I am not mistaken. All Rambus applications are within a very narrow mindset of 32 devices, 2.5 mm apart, on a short 8-cm wire. This did not work for technological reasons. The huge-size RIMMs and associated "time domain crossing" is nowhere in the current patents, yet. All this is actually a work around their own current but useless patents. Now they are twisting their interpretations of secondary details like "programmable register" with a master providing "means for reading the first access time register and determining an access time of the first memory". There is no indications that the access time is programmable in any way in the original US pat#5319755 claims, all the patches came later. If you look into Rambus "patents", you may also find out that in addition to memory devices, they claimed applications of the similar protocol to every other type of electronic blocks - processors, disk controllers, even "floating point unit" is mentioned! I guess all DSP and SCSI people must be in "trouble" as well, given Rambus claims of "fundamentality". The Rambus claims are utter nonsense, but so is the current patent law. And who exactly the judges are? What are qualifications of those who grant all this nonsense? How many of them are making the decision? "Troika"? This is scare.