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: The Prophet who wrote (68172)	3/17/2001 5:01:31 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi The Prophet; Re: "Let me add that I read the Markman ruling and I'm willing to wager that the judge's construction of "Bus" will be reversed on appeal - you, as a person skilled in the art, would not have read bus to have been limited to multiplexed bus." First of all, it's very cool that you think you know more about patent law than Wall Street does. But clearly you miss the meaning of the judge's ruling on Markman. Yes, I, as a person skilled in the art, would interpret "bus" as any old sort of bus. But that's not what's important. In the patents, "bus" is a term that describes a certain region of IP that the patent is to cover, not necessarily what it means in the real world. Heck, the Rambus patent claim on CAS latency doesn't even have the word "bus" in it. If that patent claim was valid, there would be no question that Infineon infringed whatever the definition of the word "bus". The Problem is that the earlier Rambus patent of which the above is a divisional / continuation have all claims restricted to an invention that uses a multiplexed bus. In order to cover SDRAM, Rambus had to expand the definition of "bus" to include the SDRAM case. The judge's Markman ruling is a foreshadow that he will rule that expansion illegal. Your usual comments are too terse, and wrong, to be worth anything. I put full comments on the chain of reasoning in #reply-15519465. Comment deeply and completely, please. -- Carl