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 (52793)	9/7/2000 1:56:35 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Micron Claim 64 Thanks to Rick on the FOOL Less than one month after the announcement of the Dell consent decree, Rambus announced it was leaving JEDEC. Rambus made the announcement in a letter in which it listed certain issued Rambus patents and stated that "Rambus has also applied for a number of additional patents in order to protect Rambus technology," but failed to disclose any information about its pending applications claiming priority to the Initial Application. None of the disclosed patents relates to the SDRAM or DDR DRAM standards. Rambus specifically failed to disclose a patent which had issued prior to the date of the letter, and which related to dual clock edge operation, which had been discussed as part of the work undertaken by JEDEC and which became part of the DDR DRAM standard. So Micron claims: One month after Dell consent decree Rambus announced it's resignation from JEDEC in a letter. Rambus failed to disclose a specific patent issued prior to the resignation letter. The patent covered aspect of dual clock edge operation. JEDEC had discussed aspects of dual clock edge operation. JEDEC later made certain aspects of dual clock edge operation a part of the DDR Standard. Micron DOES NOT claim: Rambus was a member of the committee or subcommittee where dual clock edge operation was discussed. Rambus was in attendance of these discussions. In other claims (claim 52 for example), it is clearly stated that Rambus was in attendance. Wouldn't that be an important aspect of the claim? Does anyone know if Rambus was a part of the DDR standards committee? Is this an omission or is Micron claiming that patent disclosure applies to all meetings, committees, and sub-committees regardless of committe membership and attendance? I wonder what the JEDEC minutes show? Rick

To: mishedlo who wrote (52793)	9/7/2000 1:57:25 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

More comments on SLDRAM and thieving cartel Rick ... yup, you got it!! SLDRAM appears to have been a last ditch effort by all the big memory makers (MM) to counter RDRAM. Since the SDLRAM Corp. (which is now a ghost site at www.sldram.com) was active in 1997-98, after Rambus had left JEDEC, that timing puts a whole new light on RMBS and the JEDEC process. Rambus has done the memory makers a huge favor ... basically serving as the industry's R&D group ... if only the industry saw it that way!! And the SLDRAM effort also shows how hard it is to craft a next-gen memory. If the lawsuits proceed, I think Rambus will have some interesting opportunities to do some discovery ... More on this subject at messages 13601 and 13624 ...