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: Zeev Hed who wrote (57709)	10/14/2000 6:45:22 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev, You believe that it is OK to ship a specification for a product which uses other peoples unlicensed IP, and then expect to collect royalties on products made from your spec- without regard to the fact that your spec infringed? Everyone in the semiconductor business should quit making things, and just sue each other. Scumbria

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (57709)	10/14/2000 7:03:50 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Zeev Hed; Re the situation with Infineon's IP. What is going on here is the threat of blocking RDRAM production. Infineon's objective here is to threaten to stop Toshiba's or Samsung's production of RDRAM, for instance. Does Infineon have cross licenses with Samsung? On the patents that are the subject of the Infineon suit? Neither of us know. I was unable to find a press release for such an agreement with a google search, but it is possible that I missed it. If you've got a link, put it up. If it is the case that Samsung and Infineon both feel that the other has patents equally as strong as their own, there would be no obvious financial reason for them to formally cross license themselves. Most of the cross licensing agreements that I read about in my google search consisted of agreements between companies that had ended up in court. I don't think that Infineon ever ended up in court with Samsung (or Toshiba), and I really doubt that they have a patent cross license agreement. And if they did cross license, that agreement is valid only for a limited time. So if there is no patent cross license agreement, or if any such agreement is due to run out, could Infineon withhold the right to make RDRAM from Samsung? The other thing to remember is that all of this is in the context of a memory manufacturing community that hates Rambus. All these companies are definitely capable of deciding on actions that are not financially profitable for them. The real question is would Samsung protect its right to make RDRAM as much as the memory makers who do not make RDRAM (which outnumber Samsung and Toshiba by quite a bit) want to see it stopped. I seem to recall that Infineon and Micron did get into a patent battle, and likely have a cross license agreement. -- Carl P.S. There seems to be some expectations among the local community that the German court system will punish Infineon, their own company, for refusing to pay Rambus royalties on SDRAM, in what is likely to be the first legal result from the SDRAM royalty trials. This seems to me to assigning the German courts a fairness that belies the historical record. Or maybe I'm being unfair here, and the Germans really have changed...