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 (57073)	10/8/2000 5:32:57 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

The Munich-based Infineon, spun off from Siemens AG in 1999, charged that Rambus used Infineon patents on latch-up protection circuit in CMOS ICs in its RDRAM designs that were passed to all other Rambus licensees. Infineon is citing pre-existing invention and art for both synchronous DRAMs and Direct RDRAM that it claimed invalidates the Rambus patents." ebnonline.com It is interesting to note that the same news item was printed in semibiznews.com but the sentence on latch-up protection circuitry was deleted. Thanks to csharan on the FOOL for catching the dropped sentence. If Infineons claim is solely based on the latch-up patent isn't their action horseshit at best? Patents can not violate other patents. Rambus does not make anything so how can they be in violation of anything. If someone else Incorporates the latch-up protection then Infineon can take that claim up with whoever. But If infienon has cross-licensing agreements with other mm's then their calim goes nowhere. As I see it, Infienon could harm RMBS only if the produces of RDRAM (Toshiba and Samsung primarily) do not have a cross license agreement with Infineon. Can someone verify this. Does anyone know what cross licensing agreements Infineon has with the other MMs, and RMBS.