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: Zeev Hed who wrote (67886)	3/15/2001 9:52:21 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi Zeev Hed; Re: "Will Infineon base its case on the fact that RMBS is its competitor? (see page 4 of the first document). That i not going to work, they are not competitor. " My guess is that the word "competitor" here is not exactly critical to the document. What the sentence is saying is that it was Rambus' duty to prosecute the patent correctly, not Infineon, Micron or Hyundai's. Does that make sense to you? Re: "Apart of that, , these document present Infineon point of view and for strange reason they do nto go to the 1990 case (and they do have access to the file wrapper), ask yourself why they do not." Zeev, you're being silly here, almost with a touch of the paranoid. Do you think that a brief should include every document it references in its entirety? Of course the file wrapper is available to the lawyers elsewhere. But it is repeatedly quoted in the Infineon document, in just the way I said it was, and the Rambus lawyers do not produce quotes that deny that. Basically, the file wrapper is about RDRAM, not SDRAM. If the file wrappers included anything that would suggest the use of a non multiplexed bus, the Rambus lawyers would have quoted it in their rebuttal to Infineon's Markman brief. They didn't, so you don't even have to look at the file wrapper to know it isn't in there. Maybe this is too complex for you to understand. I know my parents aren't as sharp as they were in their youth. Heck, I'm not as sharp as I was in my youth. Let's see if I can simplify the situation for you. [A] Rambus and Infineon disagree on the meaning of the word "bus". (That was the Markman briefs that just put you to sleep.) [B] The judge agreed with Infineon's definition. (If you read enough transcripts, you will find that this judge verbally telegraphs his decisions before writing them up.) [C] The news was reported in the press. (Rambus issued no denial, except as to the conclusion.) [D] Rambus' stock dropped 30%. If you want to believe that you're still right about the strength of Rambus' patent portfolio, go ahead, be my guest. Your trading skills are good enough that, unlike the rest of us, you get to pick and choose what you want to believe based on something other than reality (though I doubt you do that in your trading). But all indications are that a very intelligent Wall Street community concluded from the above sequence of events that Rambus was likely to lose the patent battle. -- Carl