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: Bilow who wrote (51446)	8/27/2000 5:29:19 PM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 93625

Forget about BILOW, I am putting you and the rest of the disingenuous personas on ignore.

To: Bilow who wrote (51446)	8/27/2000 6:42:41 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, it seems that it is my turn to patronize you, you may be knowledgeable in memory technology, but you know little about corporate strategies and the process of selling intellectual property. First, your assumption that royalties cannot be collected before a patent issue is a wrong assumption, enforcement of intellectual property not yet patented is another story. Biotechnology companies sell licenses on their IP long before patents actually issue. RMBS for very good reasons did not want to go that way. They did not leave any "money on the table", they first to establish the correct corporate partnership (it is difficult to chose someone worse than INTC). Then, until their partner starts and see the fruits of that partnership, or at least until it is clear that they either see the fruits or other strategies need be considered, you do not rock the boat. As for why a patent might have taken nine years before it issued, sometimes it is in the company's interest not to open its "kimono" until they got all their ducks in a row. Since as you said, RMBS' technology is revolutionary, it would be suicidal to attempt implementation in the industry without having a gorilla in your court, INTC is that gorilla. That gorilla's road map does not require RMBS' technology until they move beyond the threshold of a GHz or so, or roughly in the 1999 to 2000 timeframe. Negotiations probably took a good year or two, since INTC took a year to study the technology (they took all of 1995 and some of 1996, apparently, but the IPO papers or RMBS will give you more details), you must assume that "first contact" was probably in 1993/1994 period, probably the time the patent office itself would indicate that RMBS has allowable claims (if they filed their first patent in 1990). By that time, RMBS joined JEDEC and run away from there when they met a wall of resistance. So, why not start enforcing the SDRAM aspects? Bad strategy, INTC could care less in RMBS collects royalties on SDRAM (DDR was not around yet), and the last thing you want is to derail the support from INTC. As for why not accelerate the patent process and collect royalties earlier. Some of it, is because they probably did not want to (for reasons cited above). It is also quite possible that RMBS and INTC miscalculated the speed at which RAMBUS will be adopted, and it did not make sense to fight the SDRAM fight (without cash in the till) if SDRAM will soon be eradicated and replaced by SDRAM. The appearance of DDR changes this picture, and thus now, the frontal attack on all technologies using their patents. Furthermore, they have some 80 plus patents, many of which are continuation in parts of earlier patents, divisional applications of earlier patents and reapplication of abandoned applications. The latter tactic is often used (in the old days) when a company wants a submarine patent. A submarine patent anticipates future technological development, but comes to the surface (get the patent granted) only when the market is ready to accept such new technologies. I would guess that the delay where probably a combination of submarine tactics and natural delays due to the divisional and continuation patents. Let me put it to you this way, I have developed a "Remote Illumination Technology", and the first patent issued in June 1993 (filed December 1991), but since then five additional patents have issued (the last issued March this year) and I still have a pipeline of an additional 15 patents that need be filed. Since a license typically will include a "term" clause, and that clause will typically have a sentence "until the last to expire claim", you want to make sure that royalties on products licensed have as long a life as possible, and it does not make sense to have a patent issued in 1994, even if you could, for something that will not be in the market until 2000 (you lose 1/3 of the life of the patent). So do us all a favor and stop this nonsense P.S. (BS?) that you add to each of your recent posts, it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and shows your less than brilliant understanding of IP licensing strategies. Zeev