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: Scumbria who wrote (45134)	6/19/2000 9:00:00 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

The point I have been trying to make is that no significant design is possible these days without walking over dozens of patents. The longs over here are very proud of Rambus' patents, but the fact is that the main claim Rambus is making over SDRAM is just one of many patents being stepped on. I don't see anyone else asking for royalties on "walked over patents." Let them demand royalties. Oh, I forgot, they've got their quid pro quo for a cross-licensing arrangement. Ah! This is normally handled between companies by cross-licensing, but Rambus has no product and thus has nothing to cross license. Rambus can't really be litigated against, because they have no product besides IP. Really clever of them I think. Don't make anything tangible that has large costs associated with it's manufacture. Just think a lot and license those ideas - after disclosing them and patenting them. The patent system will have to come up with a new way to deal with IP companies They already did. It's called ROYALTIES!!!

To: Scumbria who wrote (45134)	6/19/2000 9:04:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

You mean it did not work for you! <LOL>

To: Scumbria who wrote (45134)	6/20/2000 12:22:00 AM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, This is normally handled between companies by cross-licensing, but Rambus has no product and thus has nothing to cross license. Rambus can't really be litigated against, because they have no product besides IP. The patent system will have to come up with a new way to deal with IP companies. As I've stated before, the normal system of patent checks and balances does not seem to work with Rambus. Oh, horrors. You know who we really need to go talk to -- all those companies who patent their ideas and then keep the patents to themselves so that they're the only ones who can build the products! Like those nasal strip guys! That's...that's...that's downright unAmerican, that's what it is! What gives them the right to keep their patent all to themselves and not share them? Burn 'em, I say! That's enough sarcasm, I suppose. I can't imagine where you got the idea that the patent system was designed specifically for cross-licensing patents. I didn't check the Patent Office by-laws or whatever, but I'll bet they say something like "a patent is issued to give the creator of an idea or product the exclusive rights to that idea and to protect them from unlawful duplication of said idea/product." From there, it is then the right of the creator to do whatever he/she wants to -- keep it to him/herself, license it, or cross-license it. They own said idea or product and they can do what they want with it. As for IP companies, I'll bet that cross-licensing wasn't even an issue when the Patent Office was started. The idea was to provide protection for the creativity and ingenuity of the individual. Some people built the products they envisioned, others licensed (or sold) the idea to others to build. This second category is just a form of an IP company and has existed for as long as patents have existed. There's absolutely nothing new in this concept, so the system does not have to be changed to adjust to IP companies -- it already handles them quite well. Dave