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: Bilow who wrote (58528)	10/23/2000 1:10:47 AM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 93625

Re: "that is the most obvious open and shut case against Rambus" I know you are not sincere and as a paid basher can not maintain a stock position in Rambus but perhaps my answer will help you pay your rent. BILOW it is apparent that many of the DRAMURAI had disclosures from RAMBUS under contract in 1991. In fact SDRAM was announced simultaneously in 1991 along with RDRAM. RDRAM first shipped in 1995 while SDRAM did not ship until 1996. These NDA disclosures predated RAMBUS' JEDEC membership by more than a year. Intel was one of the companies receiving disclosure of RAMBUS technology. NEC, TOSHIBA, and Hitachi were also recipients of disclosures outside of JEDEC. Guess what these companies were also members of JEDEC.<G> Your position that the JEDEC was blind sided by Rambus is laughable. Add to said the PUBLICATION of the European patent in 1992 and the disclosure issue essential to the JEDEC defense becomes ridiculous. :)

To: Bilow who wrote (58528)	10/23/2000 9:12:33 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

<<Rambus' most serious DDR/SDRAM patent is for the register bit(s) that distinguishes CAS delay in SDRAM and DDR. [I.e. CL2 vs CL3 SDRAM.] But the patent (if it is valid for SDRAM) not only covers that register bit, it also covers the technique of how you change the state of that bit. Every time an SDRAM is powered up that register has to be set, and the thing that sets it is the memory controller. Thus Rambus' patents cover the memory controller. If the memory controller is in a chipset, costing $20, then Rambus presumably takes 4% of that $20. If the memory controller is in a high end integrated CPU that costs $500, (as I expect the industry to converge on within 3 years or so), then Rambus presumably takes 4% of the $500.>> Thanks Carl. Stupid questions now. What is CAS? Can the memory controller be stand alone, or is it always in a chipset? Would there possibly be a memory controller and an additional memory controller in the chipset as well, or is there only one? Why are you presuming Rambus is asking for 4% of $500 when a chipset sells for $20. I would presume Rambus is and should be asking for 4% of the latter, although the former certainly would be a boon to Rambus shareholders. Is it possible that this is just all part of the negotiations now that is holding up a settlement? Is there any way to know what Toshiba and the others that have signed up are paying, or are they only in the memory business and not the chipset/controller business? Is a chipset really $20? Chipset prices for DDR, SDRAM, and RAMBUS? Instead of bickering, I am just trying to figure out what RMBS might be worth if things do go their way, but 4% of a CPU does not seem reasonable to me. Based on the above questions and comments, care to try again on a value? The next phase will be to guess as best as we can possible scenarios and liklihoods of Rambus IP standing up on all these things. Based on assumptions people are willing to make about that IP standing up, we should be able to come up with a risk reward scenario.