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 (68853)	3/22/2001 9:02:24 AM
From: visionthing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

from the Register... theregister.co.uk

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (68853)	3/22/2001 9:04:21 AM
From: John Walliker	Respond to of 93625

Zeev, I don't have anywhere near as much experience as you in this area, but projects I have been involved with have typically resulted in 5% royalties. In one case, which resulted in an initial payment and an ongoing 5% royalty, there was no patent, just "knowhow" and ongoing help and advise. John

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (68853)	3/22/2001 10:01:33 AM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev, In many other fields, the main IP clearly deserves a big chunk of the royalties. With ASICs, where this is a problem is that this IP is typically just one of hundreds (or thousands) that is involved in making a chip. And often it is not even a significant contributor innovation. Contrast this with star wars or drug IPs where it is clear that the main IP is the bulk of the actual product itself. If rmbs wants to charge royalties for IPs, then do so with full disclosure so that the industry and standards bodies can decide if a particular royalty rates are reasonable. If rates are not reasonable, then let the standards bodies decide if they need to work around them. Participation in a standards body cannot be taken as an opportunity to finesse the industry after the fact. SbH