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: Harvey Allen who wrote (72118)	5/6/2001 12:32:34 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 93625

Harvey, I don't think that is the one. The patent which you cited was issued on 1 May 01, therefore, I highly doubt that was part of the suit.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (72118)	5/6/2001 6:37:04 PM
From: cordob	Respond to of 93625

This is not the proper one, the last claims which survived until friday were: I. Claim #1 of the "263" patent. The "263" patent has been discussed by me extensively in "263" fascination, boards.fool.com The claim: 1. A synchronous semiconductor memory device having at least one memory section which includes a plurality of memory cells, the memory device comprises: a programmable register to store a value which is representative of a delay time after which the memory device responds to a read request. This is the "mode register" or "delay register", which has been discussed many times. II. Claim #2: 2. The synchronous memory device of claim 1 further including output drivers, coupled to an external bus, to output data on the bus, in response to the read request, synchronously with respect to an external clock. Note that claim #2 is invalid without upholding claim #1 in this case. Funnily enough claim #1 against sdram could have been avoided easily enough by using a single pin as only two values are being used to date. Ok but they didn't at least not on the data sheets which I have seen so far. (and the Intel sd133 spec). The main problem with both claims is the pedigree of the whole patent which was filed dec.1996 (well into the sdram production) and the pedigree in my post above shows that prior art might overthrow it, because the patents from which it derives by continuation/division do not have this claim in this form. ==== Hope this helps, Cheers Cor