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 (60233)	11/5/2000 9:52:22 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Thoughts on Estoppel by Floridahockeyman on the FOOL As I mentioned in a previous post, an estoppel by silence does not exist if the party asserting the estoppel had access to the relevant facts. Although the following cases which stand for this proposition arose in Florida, in my experience these cases are representative of the federal law in this area: 1. Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Naples, 614 So. 2d 1198, 1200 (Fla. 5 DCA 1993); 2. Pelican Island Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Murphy, 554 So. 2d 1179, 1182 (Fla. 2 DCA 1989); 3. Brickell Bay Club Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Hernstadt, 512 So. 2d 994, 997 (Fla. 3 DCA 1987). My bottom line, FWIW: the facts in the cases pending will likely show IMHO that all of the plaintiff Dramarai regularly inspected foreign patents grants in this area as part of their ordinary course of business. This alone would likely deep-six the "estoppel by silence" claim. Moreover, it is critical to recall RMBS' contention that the JEDEC disclosure rules were pervasively and publicly ignored by members of the JEDEC. If proven this alone would likely defeat the JEDEC defense since REASONABLE RELIANCE upon the disclosure rules could not be proven (i.e., it is not reasonable for anyone to rely upon a disclosure rule which is pervasively ignored by the membership).

To: mishedlo who wrote (60233)	11/5/2000 10:19:58 AM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

mike: gorilla-dom at its best.. looks like INTC has been heeding its internal counsel's recommendations. JMHO BP

To: mishedlo who wrote (60233)	11/5/2000 2:12:32 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi mishedlo; Re ptnewell: "(1) Intel has not announced any DDR standard. Prior to using PC066, PC100, and PC133, Intel announced standards to resolve incompatibilities between vendors (the JEDEC "standard" in each case proving insufficiently standard)." VIA drove the PC133 standard, Intel being late to the party, did not. While Intel did publish a PC133 spec, the contents of it matched the JEDEC spec, and it didn't get out until April of this year. That was about at the same time that they were shipping engineering samples of PC133 chips. I would expect that Intel will publish a DDR spec at about the same time that they start shipping engineering sample DDR chipsets, and that wouldn't be until March 2001 or so. Re "(2) Intel has announced a $70 rebate on the use of RDRAM in the Pentium 4. Since price has always been the biggest complaint, nothing could more thoroughly undermine establishing a DDR volume market." Intel is giving away $70 per P4 that goes out with RDRAM. While this is good for RDRAM, it is hardly an indication that Intel is going to avoid DDR, which would be more profitable for them. Note that the giveaway drops to $60 in 1Q01, and then goes away. He seems to think that Intel not supporting DDR will prevent DDR from becoming mainstream. That theory was busted when VIA drove PC133 into mainstream, and at the same time, took away a substantial portion of Intel's chipset business. Intel no longer drives the memory business through their selection of chipset memory interfaces. In short, watching Intel isn't as useful as it once was... -- Carl

To: mishedlo who wrote (60233)	11/6/2000 8:40:03 AM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

mishedlo, re: ptnewell's post Interesting, (but not surprising), that all the assumptions in that post are taken as if they were fact. Roadmap's have shown Almador since at least last May. (It currently shows up on the Intel eBiz site as 1H'01 product). This chip set is for P3 Tualatin/CoppermineT. It seems pretty clear that Tualatin/Almador will have 200MHz FSB. The products have been in design for quite some time. While officially an SDRAM solution, does anyone really doubt that it will be capable of DDR support? (I've seen speculation that DDR capability will exist on silicon with an enable option). Also, Intel lists a validation platform for Almador/DDR on their web site. (You need to be a Partner to access it). Combined with the news that Intel has purchased a quantity of DDR modules for validation leads me to believe the silicon is already functional. Brookdale for P4 has also been in the news or some time. Some predict it will appear in Q3'01. Again, this is expected to support SDRAM. Does anyone doubt it will also have DDR capability in silicon? The question for me is not whether Intel has chip sets that will support DDR for PIII/P4, but what are the marketing considerations that will cause them to enable support? The performance/acceptance of P4/DRDRAM is probably high on the list. The performance/acceptance of AMD/DDR is probably another factor. One thing I am sure of, if Intel decides to support DDR on either platform, they already have that capability in the works. JMHO's