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 (52597)	9/5/2000 1:08:08 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

More information on the Dell case Thanks to BCH on the FOOL ========================================================= Jacqi, I agree. I does seem that MU designed their complaint to read on the Dell decision. However, as I read the case it will still take new law to apply the Dell case to Rambus' participation in JECEC, even presuming that MU is stating facts. In particular, the decision, which in itself made new and questionable law, was based on Dell's representative signing a statement (twice) that indicated that the had no knowledge of any infringing patents. In the majority opinion, the justices suggested that they believed that Dell's representative did know and that they had a duty do disclose when asked to sign the statement relating to patents relating to the standard. There is no such indication that JEDEC requested any such written disclosure.