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: Dave B who wrote (51684)	8/29/2000 10:24:45 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, Excuse me, I forgot for a minute that only Rambus longs are entitled to an opinion. ;^) Scumbria

To: Dave B who wrote (51684)	8/29/2000 10:42:34 AM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, So far the reaction to the lawsuit seems muted. The action by Mu clouds their DDR goals. It may be a tacit acknowledgement that DDR on the desktop is a failing goal. I believe it is failing. RDRAM will have 8 to 10 % of the market by the end of this year. It will have even more next year with Timna and the P4 rampups. All this before there are any DDR systems on the market. Mu has a license to produce RDRAM but not Sdram or DDR sdram. Mu's ddr is going into the graphics cards. If you were an OEM would you risk using MU's DDR in your graphics cards if you could get licensed product from Toshiba, Hitachi or OKI? This has to hurt Mu when it sits down with the OEMS to sell product. It may also be grounds for terminating their existing supply contracts. It also clouds Mu's access to the more advanced memory such as qrsl Rdram. Mu's future in the memory business is cloudy. JK

To: Dave B who wrote (51684)	8/29/2000 11:08:49 AM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, Doesn't the first sentence of the quote in this post from The Prophet seem to answer our question? Message 14291278 "Simply stated, if a patent is lawfully acquired and lawfully enforced, any economic monopoly that stems from the power it confers is immune from the strictures of the antitrust laws. Thus, it is not an act of monopolization or an attempt to monopolize to apply for and receive a patent which confers the power to exclude all competition from a relevant market, even though, as a literal matter, monopoly power will have been wilfully acquired. But if the owner of a patent acquired it improperly (such as, for example, by committing fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office) or attempts to utilize its power beyond the limitations of the grant, that exemption is forfeited; and if the other elements of an antitrust violation are present, the Sherman or Clayton Act can be violated." Dave