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: SBHX who wrote (68567)	3/20/2001 9:48:36 PM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 93625

True SbH, But "expense" is relative. And if INTC's primary fear were truly Pin Count Catastrophe, why not go out and buy some then cheap packaging IP? I can understand the PCC thingy if we're talking 1991 or '92. But if you're looking at the compounding of the error in 1997? The world of possible options at that point have changed substantially. My experience with people tells me that making such mistakes is completely believable. What I don't see as credible is that such mistaken judgments fall under the "Ooops! missed a decimal point" category. Mistakes, particularly mistakes of judgement have reasons. They just don't pop up out of thin air. Bottom line for me is that IF RMBS had conscious plans for claiming SDRAM/DDR IP in 1997, which I have no definitive proof of at this point, INTC either new about it or didn't know about it. I assume that if they were functioning on circuits they would have wanted to know if such plans existed. And in all fairness, Barrett has made public noises which are consistent with those of a man who was surprised to find out about such intentions only well after 1997. But I can't simply disregard all the other noises emanating from that company which have proved obviously false, i.e., Camino, DRDRAM performance, etc... If they new about it then its quite possible that their hands are as soiled as those of RMBS. If they didn't know, then yes I'd definitely agree that they are a victim of the "alleged", at this point, "consious plans" of RMBS. But in this country, my experience also suggests that it is highly unusual for a victim of such a calamity, corporate or personal, to simply grumble about not knowing that it had contracted with a litigation company and continue on doing business with the perpetrator. Obviously more facts are needed, but at this point my view of the positions of INTC and RMBS in this saga, is that it is most likely that they are either both perps, or they are both silly gits - but completely innocent of intentional wrongdoing. 0\|0