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: Dan3 who wrote (59103)	10/29/2000 11:18:44 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dan, have you read those 10 patents? By the way, as a member of LES, I can tell you that the typical benefit accruing to "inventors" of IP is considered "fair" at 25% of the financial benefits enabled by the IP. If RMBS's IP is the only way, so far to get memory to work at frequencies in the post 1 Ghz era, they could claim that "whole benefit" Since gross margins in this field should be in the 25% to 30% (INTC goes all the way to 60%)6% to 7.5% royalties rate (all IP) would not be inconceivable. Thus 1% for SDRAM and 2% or higher for RDRAM and DDR would not be excessive at all. Look at it another way. If RDRAM or DDR are the only way that AMD and INTC can sell at high premiums their 1Ghz plus products (maybe a total of $5 B/year "financial benefit"), why should RMBS not be entitled to 25% of that financial benefit? You know why, because RMBS' lawyers were not smart enough to patent a method of operating a CPU in conjunction with a memory whereby their unique protocol of communication and their unique method of using double clocking is exploited. At least they did not in the 10 patents or so I reviewed. Maybe they did in other patents, and maybe that is one reason Barrett is a little "upset". Zeev

To: Dan3 who wrote (59103)	10/29/2000 11:36:54 AM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dannyboy - Your claim: "NEC is a major participant in the DDR rollout and hasn't extended its DDR agreement with Rambus beyond the end of the year so they must be expecting the Rambus SDRAM / DDR claims to lose in court." The universal reality: NEC signed for 5 years, as did Hitachi. Elpida will produce NOTHING for the time being. NEC and Hitachi fabs will pay as they produce, and transfer the cost to Elpida. Your claim: "By spinning off their fabrication divisions into a new company, NEC's and Hitachi's RAM divisions now must license from everyone, but have no cross-licenses with anyone." The universal reality: The NEC / Hitachi jv has its roots in the great semi crash of '97-98. Long before IP clashes (RMBS or other) became a driving issue in the industry. No bearing on your speculations. Re, "the universal reality." I am taking interpretive license here. <SEG> BP

To: Dan3 who wrote (59103)	10/29/2000 1:01:53 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dan3, You are incorrect. The deals with NEC and Hitachi are for 5 years not till the end of the year. What you are thinking is the Elpida company that starts Jan 1st. The NEC & Hitachi deals are for 5 years.