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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (117258)	6/22/2000 9:10:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570317

Re: "What I don't understand is how all of a sudden they decided SDRAM is their IP, and they should get royalties as a result. What am I missing?..." Did it ever occur to anybody here that RMBS may have a valid patent? I don't like it any more than anyone else but I don't think these big memory companies would just roll over for no reason. Make fun of it if you want but IP is patentable and if valid, RMBS is entitled to royalties. EP

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (117258)	6/22/2000 9:22:00 PM
From: Mani1	Respond to of 1570317

Once a technology has been available from a "pubic domain" for more than 365 days it no longer can be patented. So RMBS must have had those patents for a while. And of course if any memory manufacturer can prove prior "know how" with regard to the technology the patent does not hold. So just because Hitachi is obligated by law to pay royalties, it does not necessarily means MU or Samsung will have to do the same. One has got to think than Hitachi's lawyer?s looked at the situation carefully. RMBS indeed must have a strong enough case for Hitachi not wanting to fight it. I think that eventually, in one of courts, one of the memory makers will prove that they developed the SDRAM or DDR technology on their own and independent of RMBS. Mani