SI
SI
discoversearch

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: IceShark who wrote (51843)8/29/2000 7:33:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
Ice, I am sorry, once you have been informed of the existence of a patent on which you might infringe, if it is found later you did, it is wanton infringement from there on. Since MU had access to RMBS full suit of patents (they are RDRAM licensee's I believe", the doctrine should be that if their DDR or SDRAM infringes, they should have known at least from a "reasonable time" after they have been made aware of the suite of patents. It should be at least from the time that RMBS started demanding meetings to discuss licensing the IP for SDRAM and DDR.

Zeev



To: IceShark who wrote (51843)8/29/2000 10:03:26 PM
From: jim kelley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
They might have a case if they written the letter. It would have been a easy thing to do. Rambus would have to answer such a letter with yes or no. But barring that or other written agreements requiring disclosure Ranmbus had no legal duty to disclose its patents pending.

Not much comfort for the shorts here.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News