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: Petz who wrote (52706)	9/6/2000 3:07:29 PM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 93625

What are you talking about? Rambus has not threatened OEMS. Rambus did include Sega in an ITC action and they had a legal right to do so.

To: Petz who wrote (52706)	9/6/2000 3:08:00 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Petz> If it can be proved that Rambus actually did this, THEIR ENTIRE PATENT PORTFOLIO IS WORTHLESS AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED IN THE US. Signs of desperation?? Hey if we are lucky, the "Rambus Trials" will make it on Court T.V...! Don

To: Petz who wrote (52706)	9/6/2000 3:13:39 PM
From: Orion	Respond to of 93625

May I suggest your nomination for the SI Best Message of The Year Award. The list of the nominees is already long but you got your chance... Please provide some advice to that poor US based company, they are spending millions in useless consultants : www.micron.com ROTFLMAO Orion

To: Petz who wrote (52706)	9/6/2000 3:19:07 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Petz, Rambus hasn't threatened anybody. Any reference to such threats were a consequence of the Hitachi/Sega action and settlement and conjecture on the part of individuals who write articles or bullitan board participant's opinions. Of coarse, you do realize that it is not illegal to request an injunction to halt the sale of any product which contains an infringing product, don't you? It is perfectly legal to request such an injunction. Aside from causing the OEM great concern and putting greater pressure on the manufacturer to settle, the effect of requesting one, which Rambus hasn't done yet but has the option to, is to fast track the issue of validity of the patent. I'm certain that won't believe this so all I can say is watch what happens next. Barry@Rambusisholdingheircardsclosetotheirchest.com

To: Petz who wrote (52706)	9/6/2000 3:22:49 PM
From: Jdaasoc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Petz: Anyone who back slaps that "lying for fun" bilow tarnishes his credability 100% in my book. john Message 14328240 To: Bilow who wrote (7372) From: John Petzinger Tuesday, Sep 5, 2000 10:51 AM ET Reply # of 7712 Carl, thanks for your detailed response on high bandwidth memory architectures. Petz

To: Petz who wrote (52706)	9/6/2000 4:08:38 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

<<The ebns story "OEMs urged to examine supply contracts as Rambus asserts patent position" is GREAT news for MU and horrible news for Rambus. It is illegal in this country to use your IP to threaten a customer of a competitor. If it can be proved that Rambus actually did this, THEIR ENTIRE PATENT PORTFOLIO IS WORTHLESS AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED IN THE US. Signs of desperation>> Talk about signs of desperation YOU SOUND DESPERATE I refresh your memory to the fact that RMBS sought Injunction from bringing Sega's Dreamcast into the US. Hitachi settled didn't they? Guess OEM's might need to do this might they not? Rambus did not suggest that OEMs do this, did they? EBN suggested this action not RMBS. If this is such "Great News" why is MU's stock falling like the proberbial rock? Why Is RMBS holding steady (even rising a tad) in the face of a never ending stream of FUD like this, as well as a pretty severe 2 day market correction?

To: Petz who wrote (52706)	9/6/2000 5:32:17 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Petz, I think you just made the ignore list. :o) steve