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: capt rocky 1 who wrote (68563)	3/20/2001 10:17:16 AM
From: Jdaasoc	Respond to of 93625

rocky: no, the trial is about whether inf infringed, not whether rmbs has the patents. There are actually two trials going on. Infineon has filed a counter claim and I think that RMBS will have a hard time getting their offense on the field since they have definitely lost the coin toss and are on defense now. If Edelstone suggest hedging against loss of SDRAM and DDR royalties and H&Q mildly believes that RMBS is oversold at 16; please do not expect either a slam dunk verdict for RMBS in this trial or RMBS to rocket back to 100 if a settlement is reached. I have always depended on Intel's marketing to lead to the adoption of RDRAM as the standard. Intel has not backed off on their support for RDRAM but they at $26 are not the 800 lb gorilla they once were. john

To: capt rocky 1 who wrote (68563)	3/20/2001 10:22:40 AM
From: gnuman	Respond to of 93625

no, the trial is about whether inf infringed, not whether rmbs has the patents.. I've avoided getting into the bowels of the case, so I won't argue your point. <g> Having worked with corporate lawyers and patent attorneys in the industry, I learned to avoid interpretation of Law. <VBG>

To: capt rocky 1 who wrote (68563)	3/20/2001 10:28:41 AM
From: alanrs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Personally, I think this idea is brilliant and hope that RMBS monitors this thread.

To: capt rocky 1 who wrote (68563)	3/20/2001 1:15:46 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi capt rocky 1; There really isn't a legal question as to whether or not SDRAM infringes on a patent held by Rambus. The legal question is whether that patent is valid, and whether Rambus has the right to assert it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the parties to the disagreement stipulate to the fact that SDRAM does infringe. But if that happens, it is not a change in the position of either party. Right now the difference between "no infringement" and "invalid patent" is just a nicety, but if a ruling comes out that says that SDRAM does infringe, I'm putting you guys on notice that this would not be at all significant. Half the problem is that people (including spokespeople for the various companies) use "no infringement" and "invalid" interchangeably. Here's some references for exactly what the memory makers are trying to prove. Note that there is no denial of infringement, the real issue is the validity of the patents: Hyundai Joins Anti-Rambus Legal Fight Hyundai Electronics on Thursday threw its hat into the legal ring, joining Micron Technology in a separate effort to invalidate patents held by memory intellectual property designer Rambus. ... The Hyundai suit takes a different tack, claiming that Rambus' synchronous technology patents are invalid due to prior art and invention of synchronous timing technology for memory chips. ... techweb.com Micron sues Rambus, alleging violations in DRAM patent case ... The ad hoc industry group was also reportedly discussing whether to also seek to have the Rambus patents declared invalid because of prior art and invention by earlier patents held by many chip companies. This is expected to be a large part of the Infineon defense. ... ebnonline.com -- Carl P.S. This is why Zeev Hed gets off on continuing to quote me as saying that SDRAM does infringe Rambus patents. Sure I said that, big deal, that's not the issue at suit, though of course the memory maker lawyers are going to make Rambus prove the infringement.