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: mishedlo who wrote (51657)	8/29/2000 8:52:47 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 93625

That would be one interpretation. Another interpretation would be that the thief is the scam company demanding money for nothing, either in the form of memory that cost more and runs slower, or for alleged ownership of an alternative design they had nothing whatsoever to do with developing. patent revisions. The binding interpretation is up to the courts.

To: mishedlo who wrote (51657)	8/29/2000 9:06:45 AM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 93625

Mishedlo, Micron is a thief and you know it. From my understanding of Rambus claims to SDRAM IP, my feeling is that Rambus offers almost no value to the product. DDR may be a different story, but I have really not looked at those patents. Scumbria

To: mishedlo who wrote (51657)	8/29/2000 9:08:53 AM
From: richard surckla	Respond to of 93625

mishedlo... Like I said early this morning, it's about excessive royalty rates.That's the basis of the lawsuit.. here's the latest update: techweb.com

To: mishedlo who wrote (51657)	8/29/2000 9:19:44 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

JDEC argument weak at best ============================ In mid June, Rambus held a conference call to announce the signing of Toshiba. Hitachi hadn't yet settled. Here is what Tate had to say. CEO Goeff Tate's comments about Hitachi suit and JEDEC "the JEDEC group has rules or I should say guidelines which are not necessarily even followed by the people who are members" "we have done nothing to work against the agreements that we might have had or were expected by JEDEC. We have been open and disclosed any patents that we had at the time but in the JEDEC group, the JEDEC members themselves do not openly disclose all of their patents and several of the members make that very clear, including publicly" I wonder who those other JEDEC members are? It sounds like JEDEC at best is inconsistent with the enforcement of their guidelines. It would be interesting to see those JEDEC meeting minutes. If this doesn't settle we may just get an opportunity to read those minutes.