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: John Walliker who wrote (71527)	5/2/2001 6:57:36 AM
From: hdl	Respond to of 93625

the judge took a sh*t in the bus even tho it didn't have a bathroom- and now blames rmbs for its poor inadequate design

To: John Walliker who wrote (71527)	5/2/2001 7:06:29 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

John, SDRAM multiplexes some of the address lines at initialisation to configure the output delay register. Therefore SDRAM uses a multiplexed bus. Addressing a register is a Rambus invention? LOL Scumbria

To: John Walliker who wrote (71527)	5/2/2001 3:11:03 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi John Walliker; Re multiplexed bus &c... Clearly DRAM has had row / column multiplexed buses since long before Rambus. DRAM from before Rambus didn't have configuration data passed on the address lines, but VRAM did. I think the significance of Rambus' multiplexing is that, as is stated in the claims on their original patent, they use far fewer pins in their connection than other varieties of DRAM. The way it is stated in their claims is that the number of lines in their bus is less than the number of address lines in a row or column address. That is a definition that does not include any modern DRAM at all. The real question here is what is the meaning of "multiplexed". We can make up any words we want to for this, but to the legal system, or at least to Judge Payne, it is clear that "multiplexed" is a word that doesn't include SDRAM. It's not a matter of anyone failing to treat the bus as a whole, it's a matter of how Rambus itself distinguished their invention from the prior art. Either Rambus failed to distinguish themselves, in which case the patents cover SDRAM but are invalid for prior art (and obviousness), or the patents did distinguish, in which case they don't cover SDRAM (or even DRDRAM). -- Carl