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 (50399)	8/20/2000 12:46:18 PM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

What perversions are you referring to?

To: Scumbria who wrote (50399)	8/20/2000 1:00:14 PM
From: sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Although I am hesitant to do so, there actually is a somewhat interesting post on -- ahem -- YHOO/RMBS that should be seen and debated by both longs and shorts imo. Clearly, the legal issues surrounding RMBS are becoming THE issues that will ultimately determine the rise and/or fall of the stock price (in the absence of a market melt-down). We all know why. That is why I have been posting lawsuit related info to this thread for the past few weeks/months. Everything else at this point is unfortunately less important...and in some cases even a waste of time. The Lawsuit... by: shysterfellow 8/19/00 8:39 pm Msg: 149440 of 149525 Disclaimer: I have long been LONG on really good BUS seats. The USPTO will also be a "friend of the court;" and, they will be the best BUS witnesses. My former partners - I am retired now - have looked at all of the patents, and read the Hitachi case. They say, IFX is a slamdunk for the BUS. The "DELL decision" is totally offpoint to RMBS v IFX. The BUS may not be able to get a preliminary injunction against shipments of IFX products, but the BUS can force the "fast tracking" of the case. Even if a request for a jury trial is withdrawn, NO judge is going to allow IFX to "steal" from an American company. Some LONGS find it hard to believe that people cannot see the obvious. I suggest that - with the exception of the paid bashers - most of the doubters are just ignorant of the law and the facts of the case as they relate to the law. LONGS should be less "mean" to the naysayers and try to bring them along with the facts. The USPTO will defend their issues with our tax money. They are not going to have their issues overturned under any circumstances. The USPTO's EEs, who reviewed the applications for eight-years, included several PHDs; they know how to read, and they understand the concept of "prior art" better than anyone on any message board. There was NO prior art; that is why the patents issued!!!! There is no "cross-patent" issue in the instant lawsuit. IFX owns no IP that "stepped before" RMBS. RDRAM does not infringe on anything --- except other BUS patents. BUS defenders should not get too wrapped up in the RDRAM v DDR debate; we will ultimately get paid for ALL OF IT. I hope all of us do well next week. messages.yahoo.com