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: gnuman who wrote (56837)	10/6/2000 4:01:34 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 93625

"Rambus Inc.'s basic Direct RDRAM design violated Infineon Technologies AG patents, the German chipmaker charged in a countersuit filed today in federal district court in Richmond, Va." It is clear that RDRAM, SDRAM and DDR SDRAM use dram cell designs from an earlier era. But RAMBUS patents go beyond that era. Infineon patent claims from an earlier time would have to read on top of Rambus' patent claims in order for there to be precedence on the part of Infineon. This is extremely unlikely because RDRAM is a radical departure from the earlier DRAM. We will have to wait to see the particulars. "Infineon denied those charges and went after Rambus' core Direct RDRAM design as well. The Munich-based Infineon, spun off from Siemens AG in 1999, charged that Rambus used Infineon patents in its RDRAM designs that were passed to all other Rambus licensees." Again, Infineor has to show that all the novel elements of the RDRAM design were shown in earlier Infineon patent disclosures , e.g., in their drawings and their writeup. Alternatively, they would have to show that their patent claims read right on top of Rambus' patent claims. Either or both of these events is extremely unlikely. In addition, Infineon is a RDRAM licensee and presumably has already reviewed the RDRAM technology before signing its license. Part of that licensing agreement gives RAMBUS the right to any improvement in the RDRAM technology and the right to use any related patents by Infineon. This is to allow a consistent RDRAM design standard across the industry. "Infineon is citing pre-existing invention and art for both synchronous DRAMs and Direct RDRAM before Rambus ever applied for its patents." Hyundai is also claiming prior art. But in looking at the prior art referenced by Hyundai it is obvious that the patent office already considered it before granting Rambus the patent. The prior art patent in question is referenced in Rambus' patents. It would be interesting to get some more details.

To: gnuman who wrote (56837)	10/6/2000 4:26:17 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 93625

Gene, This is old news. Hyundai has also claimed prior-art (may be the same as Infineon). Rambus has looked at both and their response was that it has nothing to do with their patents. They even talked about it in one of their slides at the recent analyst meeting (slides are in the rambusite site). In any case, claims and counterclaims will fly through the air from both sides. Courts will decide for both sides. December is the first court date in Germany against Infineon. That should give some direction.