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: Bilow who wrote (69031)	3/24/2001 5:18:55 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Mr. Billow, A. I'm not sure exactly how. I guess because of the fact that we had some claims that have now been issued as part of new patent applications that covered those configurations, so since they were allowed, I assume that they must be valid. Again, I'm not a lawyer. Well I am a lawyer and I am "sure exactly" and don't have to "guess" in order to identify an unprepared witness. ...Then again perhaps the RMBS lawyers weren't "sure exactly" and had to "guess" what the relevant issues were going to be at this pre Markman deposition. I have seen enough Carl. DRDRAM is DDD and, unless RMBS comes up with documented admissions that IFX was on the Grassy Knoll, so are the RMBS claims for SDRAM/DDR royalties. What is Tate going to say on the stand? "Everybody in management knew full well that the 92 and prior patents covered SDRAM, but we sent idiot Engineers to the JEDEC meetings who didn't have a clue what the patents covered. When asked, they didn't tell IFX that SDRAM was ours because it just hadn't filtered down the line yet."?? If there is a settlement of this case - and I'm not "sure exactly" how they could get any thing more than the agreement, already offered, to be allowed to walk away - there will have to be some huge *paranoid* conspiracy involving INTC and MU to explain it to me. You know,... something like MU's Subpoena The World strategy comes up with video taped proof positive that this entire scheme was born in the foothills of Santa Clara, and that RMBS was set up as the "vehicle" to take the fall just in case the plan fell through. :8) For RMBS to let a jury get these facts and a RICO charge to deliberate is a risk that no amount of Imodium IP could possibly justify. If the implications of Crisp's statements are true, there will be an attempt at an amended complaint and any and everything else RMBS can do to delay the trial so they can try to figure a way out of the mess. ...At least my faith in the intellect and competence of INTC has been restored. <vbg> Then again,... perhaps RMBS management will try to slip out of the noose by threatening to hand over the BIG fish? I wonder if INTC would pay $50/sh to avoid that and let everybody go home quasi happy?<g> Hmmmm,... if Oliver Stone can make millions with his piddly little paranoid tales, I ought to be able to Rule Hollywood with mine.(Ho Ha:8) 0\|0

To: Bilow who wrote (69031)	3/24/2001 9:15:03 AM
From: multicollinearity	Respond to of 93625

<Not much news running around, so I'm going to pursue one of my other hobbies... See ya all on Monday.> Bilow, You stated the above in Message 69020 at 9:59pm Friday evening. Since then you've harassed us with 4 additional messages. Do you want to completely destroy what little credibility you might still have, or is it an act of final desperation? Multico

To: Bilow who wrote (69031)	3/24/2001 10:11:28 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, of course, when you are first inventing something, you have no idea how broad your invention is, if you have a good patent lawyer, he writes the claims to be as broad as the specification allows. I'll give you an example from my own experience, I have a patent (5,836,669) which relates mostly to appliances and how to illuminate the inside from a light sources not within the appliance itself. Originally, i was going to just make the claims limited to "appliances", but I have a smart lawyer, and in discussing the proposed claims, it occurred to me that there might be broader applications, and my lawyer agreed, and while the first independent claim relates to an "Appliance", in claim 24, the scope is broadened to include "An article of manufacture", thus that would include strange things like drawers within furniture, light boxes, an MRI tube's internal spaces etc. even though, it was not my original intention. Since the original 1990 patent application (the specification) seems to have been broad enough to cover SDRAM (which was not yet in existence or in public domain), patents that derive from that specification surely can contain broadening of the original claims, if indeed the original specification can be construed to have covered these. The PTO is the one that decides if the original specification indeed covers these "new" embodiments (SDRAM) and by allowing the later SDRAM related patents, the PTO declared that RMBS already in 1990 invented those aspects of SDRAM which are in "question". Just because Crisp did not know they did, does not really matters. I view Crisp's testimony as a big win for Rambus, since its shows that at Jedec's meeting, Crisp did not know how broad were the Rambus patents, and then he was of the opinion they did not cover SDRAM, thus, Rambus did not hide from Jedec the fact that they had patents covering SDRAM. When the specs was taking final shape, Rambus' engineers or lawyers hit their "common" forehead and then came to the realization, all that stuff is covered by our original teachings, let's make it clear with appropriate claims in continuations we have already on file...and get the hell out of Jedec, which they did. Zeev

To: Bilow who wrote (69031)	3/24/2001 2:26:25 PM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

Carl, Hi all; Rambus employee says their patents didn't cover SDRAM, as far as he knew: You are correct in the "as far as he knew" part. Since the JEDEC folks knew as early as April 1992 that Rambus was considering approaching Samsung for SDRAM royalties (of $10M, a very specific figure), it appears that Mr. Crisp was out of the loop on this. And, NightOwl, your declarations of victory are as premature as Carl's always are. It appears you two have a case of "premature congratulation" <G>. Dave