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: pompsander who wrote (66499)	2/23/2001 7:25:04 PM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

pomp... I'm sure we'll hear the jawbones of Scumbria, Ali, and Bilow run full speed on this... This came from yoursuit on YAHOO: m-cam.com This came from a replier: Re: yoursuit by: LOUMFSG (35/M/San Francisco) 02/23/01 05:40 pm EST Msg: 221749 of 221763 I don't think this Patent issue is something to worry about. Read the conclusion carefully. "The analysis of the eight patents involved in Micron v. Rambus did not identify any significant prior or concurrent art claim problems for these specific patents" The '703 patent where they do indicate a prior art concern is NOT one of the patents in suit. It is a predecessor to some of the patents in suit, but not all of them. (See the Citation and Continuation Web on page 8) I think the bottom line is this: Rambus has an entire portfolio of strong patents. There may be certain claims within some of them that could be invalidated based on prior art. However, it seems to me highly unlikely that all of them could be invalidated, and as long as valid Rambus claims survive, Rambus is entitled to royalties. Anyway, that's how I see it, for what it is worth. I am not a patent attorney, nor an engineer.