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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Clarke who wrote (2762)	2/15/2001 10:33:49 PM
From: jhg_in_kc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4690

James what is your take on Dell earnings and conf. call. Since I no longer own the stock, I only occassionally visit the Dell thread... What do you think of CIEN (200 p/e, I know...but the only fiber optic to not guide lower or warn. It may be eating NT's lunch.) all the best jhg

To: James Clarke who wrote (2762)	3/16/2001 3:54:18 PM
From: jhg_in_kc	Respond to of 4690

any thoughts? -------------------- In a ruling that sent Rambus shares plunging, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Payne said the company's definitions of key terms defining the scope of four patents at the center of the dispute were ``at odds'' with claims made by inventors in seeking the patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Payne also said Rambus, and an expert witness who testified for the company, appeared to be trying to broaden the scope of its patents on synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM) and double-date rate (DDR) memory, which are at the heart of its royalty suit against Infineon. ``Also, it was difficult to credit (the expert's) testimony on disputed terms because it reflected the general, and disturbing, tendency of Rambus to distance its current constructions from what the inventors said in...the specification, and, in doing so, to use the claim construction process to broaden claims,'' Payne wrote in the 77-page ruling.