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: Barry Grossman who wrote (49487)	8/12/2000 2:21:38 PM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 93625

Mr. Grossman,... And you call yourself a private eye?! I get up at 4 in the AM just to give you the Pure Quano on the legal travails of Da' Bus and all you have to say is: No one have anything to say about the Infineon filing and Avo's comment as reported by J Robertson? What are you waiting for? The "me too's" and "ditto's" from the back of this Bus? Is this news "worthy" of an opinion? If so please share it with us. ...Sounds like Carl isn't the only one using this thread as an Entertainment vehicle. :8) 0\|0

To: Barry Grossman who wrote (49487)	8/12/2000 2:45:29 PM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Barry, re: <No one have anything to say about the Infineon filing and Avo's comment as reported by J Robertson?> Since that was posted to me, I'll respond. It's not unsuspected, but there are few details I've been able to find. But then again, I don't have any expertise in the area, so I probably wouldn't understand it anyway. <g> I think it would be in everyone's best interest to get the IP issue resolved. Since Infineon is one of the larger players this may be the lawsuit that does it. I have never expressed an opinion on the validity of the IP, mainly since I'm not qualified to make an opinion. I do believe, however, that Rambus' valuation is closely tied to the IP. The only documents I've seen were posted by rambusite. I took a look at the document out of interest, but what little is there is confusing. rambusite.com The docket document references this statute: Satute 35:145 Sec. 145. Civil action to obtain patent An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in an appeal under section 134 of this title may, unless appeal has been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have remedy by civil action against the Commissioner in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if commenced within such time after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Commissioner appoints. The court may adjudge that such applicant is entitled to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, as the facts in the case may appear and such adjudication shall authorize the Commissioner to issue such patent on compliance with the requirements of law. All the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant. Perhaps one of the lawyer's on the thread has something substantive to say about the whole issue. As for me, I'll just watch with interest.

To: Barry Grossman who wrote (49487)	8/12/2000 2:53:38 PM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 93625

Barry, I would like to get more information on the lawsuit before commenting on any particulars. I am happy to see that RAMBUS is proceeding quickly in pressing its claims. These lawsuits can go on for years in some matters. However, I think it difficult for these DRAM companies to plan when they may have contingent liabilities that could consume all their profits and possible put them out of business after an adverse ruling. If the companies do not have any credible IP defenses IMO they should settle quickly. If they do the defenses can be presented to RAMBUS and they can retire the affected claims. The other peripheral issues appear to be without merit.