SI
SI
discoversearch

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: The Prophet who wrote (67788)3/15/2001 3:45:28 PM
From: Estephen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
from fool thread

"Some of Rambus's patent claims are independent of the type of bus. So for these claims, it does not matter if the judge defines a bus as a "multiplexed bus". Latency register, variable burst, DDR, and delay locked loop are all independent of the type of bus.

For more details read pages 5, 6, and 7 at:
rambusite.com

Remember, for Infineon to win the trial, Infineon needs to discredit all of Rambus's claims. If the judge defines a bus as a "multiplexed bus", then Infineon has successfully discredited some, BUT NOT ALL, of Rambus's claims. For Rambus to win the trial, Rambus only needs 1 of the claims upheld.



To: The Prophet who wrote (67788)3/15/2001 3:46:48 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 93625
 
Hi The Prophet; You analysis of how Markman interacts with JEDEC is silly. Try harder. As far as the claims, go back and read the claims in the original 1990 filing. They're on the Rambusite site. You're the moron who put money in this POS, so don't ask me to go get the links for you, go look it up yourself like a man. You will find that every one of those claims uses the term "bus". The Markman ruling is that you can now substitute "Rambus" for "bus" in each of those claims. That means the claims don't cover SDRAM or DDR. Got it? It was simple enough for the people who weren't blinded by greed to understand.

-- Carl