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: richard surckla who wrote (54604)	9/21/2000 11:14:26 PM
From: Don Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

No License Agreements for Makers Defeated in Lawsuits, Rambus VP Says September 21, 2000 (TOKYO) -- Rambus Inc. of the United States discussed its future licensing policies in an interview with BizTech on Sept. 19. Avo Kanadjian, vice president of worldwide marketing at Rambus, spoke to BizTech deputy editor, Shinichi Jimbo, during his visit to Japan to attend the Intel Developer Forum Fall 2000 Japan, held at the Hotel New Otani in Tokyo. Q: Rambus recently sued Micron Technology Inc. and Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd. for patent infringement in Germany and France. Why hasn't Rambus filed those lawsuits in the United States? A: In the States, and in California in particular, it takes around two years for a lawsuit to get to court. The process is much faster in Europe. We sued in Europe because we've got patents there too. But we've also taken action in the States. We filed a suit with the International Trade Commission to block importation of Hyundai products. Q: I understand that the license fees will be higher for manufacturers you filed lawsuits against. Is this correct? A: It's true in general. I can't comment specifically about any particular maker, but Hitachi Ltd., a company we settled with after a legal battle, won't be any exception to the rule. Let me make it quite clear: Our policy at Rambus is to refuse a license to any maker that we've taken to court over licensing matters and that's lost the lawsuit. Hitachi and NEC Corp. will merge their DRAM divisions in 2001. In dealing with the new company, we'll continue our licensing agreement with whichever party has the higher equity stake. If Hitachi and NEC take 50-50 shares, we'll establish a new licensing agreement. Q: Intel Corp. recently changed its road map for main memory for personal computers. It's now looking to make the PC133 SDRAM the mainstream for its Pentium 4 computers. How does Rambus view the situation? A: There's been no change in Intel's general stance. They'll still be using Direct Rambus DRAM as the main memory for the Pentium 4. Their 820 chipset for desktop PCs wasn't successful, but the 840 chipset for workstations has been very well received. According to survey results, among PC workstation models, 38 percent were using the 840 -- Direct RDRAM, in other words -- in the first quarter of 2000. But the proportion rose to 75 percent in the second quarter. The reason for the rise is that the 840 enables dual-Direct Rambus channel control, which vendors see as delivering performance gains in their computers. The 850 chipset for Intel's Pentium 4 also supports dual-channel architecture. The problem at the moment is the high cost of producing Direct RDRAM. And until now, Intel was saying it would move over completely to Direct RDRAM for main memory. This has meant that memory makers tended to set quite high sales prices for supplying Direct RDRAM. Intel's main objective right now is to sell large volumes of the Pentium 4 processor, so we see their decision to go with the PC133 SDRAM as a business decision. Q: Is there any likelihood that the price of Direct RDRAM will come down? A: From the technical point of view, there are two factors that determine price: the cost of making the actual chips, and the cost of the special packages for Direct RDRAM devices. The chip cost will be lower when 256Mb devices come on stream. Currently, producing a 128Mb device carries an overhead of around 10 percent, but it drops to less than five percent for 256Mb devices. Apart from the cost benefits, 256Mb devices offer other advantages when used in PCs. You can connect as many Direct RDRAM devices as you want to a Direct RDRAM channel. With two 256Mb devices, you can build a module with 64MB capacity. A SIMM module with an SDRAM has a 64-bit interface, so eight of the standard x8-bit devices would be required, giving 256MB in module capacity. As a modular unit, this is too large for PCs. In regard to the cost of package production, the anticipated economies of scale should reduce costs for memory makers. At the moment, Direct RDRAM packages cost about 50 percent more than PC133 SDRAM packages, but we expect the price premium for Direct RDRAM to fall to 20 percent in 2001. Q: Rambus has developed next-generation technology known as the Quad Rambus Signaling Level (QRSL). Is this intended as memory technology for use in PCs? A: We envision QRSL being used in consumer equipment initially. Toshiba Corp., which supplies Direct RDRAM controllers for the PlayStation2, is interested in this technology. The technology uses multi-value theory to distinguish signal levels, enabling twice as much information to be sent without any change in the data transfer rate. We've already held demos to show the technology in operation. (Shinichi Jimbo, Deputy Editor, BizTech News Dept.)