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: Dave B who wrote (58938)	10/26/2000 4:43:59 PM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 93625

Dave, I thought that Rambus Infineon motion to dismiss argument dealt straight with the JEDEC issue. 1)Rambus did inform JEDEC members that they had patents in process and revealed exactly the specifications of their inventions in the '703 patent aside from the technical disclosure under NDA contracts with the MMs all the way back to 1991. 2)It is particularly comdemning that they spent the next 3 years cherry picking Rambus' technology for use in the Sdram, the SyncLink memory and then finally the DDR memory. It will be interesting to see the Infineon response. JK

To: Dave B who wrote (58938)	10/26/2000 5:28:21 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

RE:"A significant number of the bears hate Intel and Rambus so much that it clouds their judgments. Of course arguments like that won't hold up in court." Seems like something interesting is about to happen. it was easy for some to hate Rambus and Intel at the same time because Intel was trying to shove Rambus on the industry. Intel/Rambus looked like a package deal. Now, Intel looks like it wants to distance itself from Rambus. The problem is that who do they pull for now? Intel or Rambus? Some will stay strictly anti-Rambus where as some will bask in Rambus possibly suing Intel, saying intel is getting what they deserve. Interesting twists, hey? If Rambus sues Intel will you then be anti-Intel? Jim