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: Jdaasoc who wrote (46899)	7/10/2000 7:54:19 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Respond to of 93625

see the next post. Thank you SI programmers.

To: Jdaasoc who wrote (46899)	7/10/2000 7:56:17 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

semi.org!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,rambus* Further clouding the horizon are three legal actions by Rambus Inc. against chip maker Hitachi based on alleged patent infringement. Surprisingly, the actions don't involve Rambus DRAMs but SDRAMs instead. In January, Rambus filed suit in Delaware federal court seeking injunctions against the manufacture, use and sale of certain Hitachi devices. One part of the suit essentially charges Hitachi with failing to discuss with Rambus how Hitachi's non-Rambus products might infringe on Rambus patents. essentially charges???..failing to discuss?? might infringe?? I understood that Rambus charged Hitachi with patent infringement. No ifs ands or buts about it. In April, Rambus filed a similar suit in Germany charging infringement of its European patent affecting SDRAM and DDR SDRAM devices. It alleges that Rambus invented fundamental aspects of high-speed memory interfaces used in SDRAMs and DDR SDRAMs. This one is still alive if I'm not mistaken. I wonder why??? Any ideas? The case hinges on a narrow question, according to Peter N. Glaskowsky, senior editor of the Microprocessor Report, Sunnyvale, Calif. Did Hitachi violate Rambus's intellectual property rights? This simple question, however, has implications that extend well beyond the two companies involved, he says. And the answer according to Hitachi is...Yes! The outcome of these proceedings will be directly relevant to every company making or using synchronous DRAMs, Glaskowsky says. The Rambus patents also are likely to relate to the work of the Advanced DRAM Technology (ADT) effort, he observes. Hitachi's most substantial argument is that JEDEC policies predating Rambus's participation require JEDEC members to disclose any patent applications that relate to the work of JEDEC committees to which these members belong, according to Glaskowsky. According to Hitachi, Rambus filed its original patent application in April 1990, more than a year before it began attending the relevant JEDEC committee meetings, but did not notify JEDEC. In Glaskowsky's opinion, the critical question is this: Does participation in a standards committee create an implied contract among the members of the committee? Contracts require an exchange of value under agreed-upon terms. He believes this requirement was met in this case. The value lies in the cooperation among JEDEC members, and the terms of the agreement were expressed in JEDEC's policies, he says. Glaskowsky suspects that Rambus and Hitachi will be willing to settle their differences if Rambus withdrew its claims over SDRAM and Hitachi agreed to produce and promote RDRAM. WRONG! Of course, Rambus is entitled to try to enforce its patent claims on advanced memory technology, he adds. Correctomundo!

To: Jdaasoc who wrote (46899)	7/10/2000 9:54:36 PM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

john: Once there was a little start-up, that had a revolutionary way to deliver a product: faster, better, cheaper. This is a very important product, that is used ubiquitously and is required in all sorts of production, industrial process, and fabrication industries, and whose consumption is growing at multiples of worldwide GDP growth. This little renegade company had cutting edge technology which could deliver the product at point of use, for far less than the existing oligopoly ('oligopoly' in this case = 6 companies who controlled 90% of the world's market), which possessed 20 year old technology. This older technology was within 3% of its theoretical limits of maximum, and only had 1 - 2 incremental improvements left in it, mainly through metallurgical and minor process improvements. The little start-up filed a slew of disclosures and patent applications, some process based, and some based upon composition of matter. It then signed up parts of the oligopoly, with (within the limits of its very discrete IP budget) well crafted tech transfer agreements / licenses and some nifty cost-plus-license-fee production agreements. The patents issued. The company did well, until it decided to go after the largest market of all. All of a sudden, it began to notice the appearance of new systems with embodiments which very much resembled its own proprietary innovations. All of a sudden, the price of product provided by the old, incremental technology dropped 80 - 90% whenever there was an open account. All of a sudden, the little company was told that its patents were obvious and that the licenses were of no value. The founder of the company was told: "how DARE you be so arrogant as to think that your innovations have value and we should pay you for them. We will crush you." True story, different industry, different outcome. That company died. And with it, a technology vanished (relegated to a multinational's shelf) and the dreams and dollars of many hard working Americans were obliterated. When the company died, the clones of its systems appeared with less and less frequency, tho' they continue to appear today. True story. Classic story of IP theft-by-entitlement. Classic story of an industry's resistance to change of paradigm / business model, of an avoidance of re-tooling and change of production economics. The Rambus story has similarities to this and not new. However, RMBS management has demonstrated itself to be skilled enough to avoid the business mistakes that others have made in the past. I know where my dollars are placed. Beats the hell out of listening to smug engineers who don't dare to even reveal the reasons they are here, to state the obvious. 'Nuff said. BP