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 (66208)	2/19/2001 12:40:50 AM
From: charred water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Are you suggesting that misappropriating Rambus IP is okay as long as the product is not called Rambus? Rambus was developing a product commonly known back then as "Rambus", now known as RDRAM. They memory manufacturers never had any reason to believe that Rambus had any interest in SDRAM

To: Scumbria who wrote (66208)	2/19/2001 8:06:06 AM
From: froland	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Scumbria: Had the MM's been looking forward, they might have developed a high bandwidth memory technology years ago. Since they didn't, it left the door open for RMBS. What the MM's don't like is having to react to RMBS for the past 10 years. They still haven't been able to standardize and place into general availability (GA) a rival to RDRAM. DDR appears to be at least 12 months behind RDRAM. Just like Beta and VHS both had their merits, so do DDR and RDRAM. Which one is better is debateable. RDRAM seems to have gotten out of the gate earlier and the question is can DDR catch up. I'm not certain we'll see DDR in a PC go GA in the first half of this year. By autumn, it may be too late. If it's next year, the race will have already ended. froland

To: Scumbria who wrote (66208)	2/19/2001 9:28:32 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

You still don't get it. Let me try and explain this in a manner that might be grasped by you. Company A has developed a unique electrode material for rechargeable battery and has solid patents both on the materials and methods of making same. Their only interest is of course batteries. Company B is in the business of electrochromic systems, and find those electrodes to be indispensable in their systems and starts using them. Do they owe royalties to company A? The law is quite simple, they do, if the claims were addressed to "electrodes" rather than to "electrodes in rechargeable batteries", even if the claims were worded "electrodes in reversible cells", a much narrower definition, company B's product would be covered. Of course, at the time company A develop its technology, they could not fathom the use in electrochromic systems, and later, in the process of continuation in parts, they found these additional applications, the law still grant them monopoly. As a matter of fact, even if that new application would be "obvious to a person trained in the art", as long as the original inventors add these new (now obvious in light of their original application, and as long as one year after the original application has entered the public domain) applications in a new patent, these are granted. Zeev