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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (67830)	3/15/2001 9:52:03 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

First, I do have a long position right now, it is much cheaper than the one I sold, and that too has a stop loss . Second, I do not know who's position on the patents will prevail, maybe you do. From my reading of the patents and the prior art brought up by Infineon, I would say that Infineon does not have a chance. I am not familiar with the RICO statutes, so I cannot comment on them. I would only say, that if I were to be defending RMBS in front of a Jury, I would ask the jury to consider the following, 1.a good portion of the participants (maybe all of them) had signed NDA and were fully aware of the technology. 2. Jedec drifted to use some of these confidential element in their SDRAM and DDR specs, because they were made aware of these technologies through NDA, that, by the way is breach of contract (at least, most NDA have a "non-use clause". Surely, INTC who led the SDRAM effort was aware of RMBS IP and thus there was no need to redisclose what was already disclosed under NDA. 3. The attorney should ask the Jury, what did the members of JEDEC thinking? They knew RMBS was an IP house, they all had licensing negotiations with RMBS, what were they thinking would be RMBS' compensation for its effort be, they really thought they will have access to that IP for free? Zeev