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: GVTucker who wrote (53835)	9/18/2000 3:00:01 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

GV> I don't mean to imply that the Hitachi and NEC licenses expire on 31 Dec 2000, just that they appear to be irrelevant after that. That was exactly what I meant in my Conference comments that Rambus again seems to avoid commenting on the Key questions. That seems to be their style?? They let many of these news controversies get started and make little effort to put out the fires. A real need for a In-HOUSE DAMGE CONTROL TEAM. You really have to think Rambus is now being run by the lawyers, it reminds of the Clinton White House Don

To: GVTucker who wrote (53835)	9/18/2000 3:22:30 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Royalties on SDRAM and DDR controllers are anything but irrelevant. They produce much higher royalties to the tune of 4-6% and both NEC and Hitachi will be paying Rambus on them for many years to come. Hitachi's SH MCUs are almost everywhere including in every Sega dreamcast which sold last year 6 million units.

To: GVTucker who wrote (53835)	9/18/2000 3:38:43 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

GV, One more thought on the NEC/Hitachi venture (I'm not trying to spin anything -- just providing a "warning"). The Japanese have not demonstrated a very strong will to resist paying licensing fees to Rambus. In the short-term, I wouldn't make any trading decisions on either expectation that the joint venture will or won't sign a license. But I'm sure you know that <G>. Dave

To: GVTucker who wrote (53835)	9/18/2000 7:43:33 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

GV, it will be quite a unique precedent when it come to court if a companies whose antecedents (NEC and Hitachi) try to claim their antecedents were wrong in recognizing the validity of Rambus' patents (by signing a license agreement). It is more likely that to avoid reduplication of the legal effort that the assigns will inure to all the IP of the parents, including license agreements with Rambus (and many cross licensing agreements with other companies, which under your theory will be null and void once the new entity starts its life). I think that the new venture will be a willing and competitive licensee of Rambus, I also think that MU and Hyundai are playing Russian roulette with their respective corporate lives. Zeev