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: Scumbria who wrote (63183)	12/19/2000 7:05:49 PM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 93625

Whoa, Scumbria....the value of any patent rests in the willingness of its owner to protect it. Many patent owners have allowed their intellectual property to move into broad and general use. I do not see Rambus doing that....rather the opposite. I don't know the specific cases you note, but why are the patents "unenforcable"? Did the owners fail to protect their rights when they should have? Whatever the "unenforcability" of Rambus patents, I note that some big players have rather signed on than fought over the issue. Each player that does so strengthens the overall case for Rambus. I still think they are in the driver's seat right now. BWDIK

To: Scumbria who wrote (63183)	12/19/2000 7:07:01 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, SGI holds a patent which covers all texture caches. It is impossible to build a graphics processor, without a texture cache. Nevertheless, they will never collect a penny from this patent because it is unenforceable. Likewise, STMicroelectronics holds a patent which covers all onboard caches. Do you think that they are collecting any royalties? If they choose to not try to enforce their patents, or to trade them away, that's their decision. Are you saying that because they're not getting any royalty from them, that the patents are invalid? Once a patent is granted, it is assumed valid until someone proves otherwise, not the other way around. Dave