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: milo_morai who wrote (68031)	3/17/2001 12:49:58 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 93625

Milo, "Was there more bad news today or.." I think the worst is still ahead. Infineon only played one card - the "multiplexed bus". They did not play yet the JEDEC card. I think more and more Rambust mom-n-pop gamblers begin to realize that RMBS is in catch-22 situation, with a criminal scent. I can see 2 scenarious: 1. Rambus convinces the court that their "latency register" and other stuff were invented and properly documented in "898" application of 1990, and that their "multiplexed bus" is no different than any other bus. Then the fact that Rambus knew this but "didn't speak up" during four years sitting around the clock in JEDEC committees would certainly require some good legally-correct explanation to escape a sort of fraud charges; 2. Court finds that the latency register and dual-edge-data cannot be clearly identified in divisionals of "898" application, so the JEDEC members (who were formally and informally familiar with the Rambus concept) have had all rights to include programmable registers (known to the digital industry for decades) into open standards, espesially if official Rambus representatives did not voice their concerns. Now the question arises as what Rambus was doing during the JEDEC sessions, and how those collectively -defined DRAM features found their legs in "continuation" of Rambus patents, and later became a tool of collecting royalties from DRAM manufacturers. In short, if they knew that SDRAM standards infringe their inventions, what was their goal of "not speak up" at JEDEC? If they were not sure whether the register was important for DRAMs, and did not include it into pre-JEDEC claims, what was the goal to for those registers to appear in post-JEDEC patent filings-"continuations"? I would like to hear Rambus answers.