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: Don Green who wrote (72774)	5/14/2001 2:01:56 AM
From: Eric K.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: The case the memory manufacturers have brought against Rambus is largely the result of an industry that is resisting a long-overdue abandonment of an outdated model built upon cross licensing. [from fred hager] It's hard to believe that RAMBus is genuinely arguing for the elimination of the idea of shared, cross-corporate research in semiconductors, as well as pushing the future of the industry as a few ip houses that come up with semiconductor designs and a few fab companies that produce these companies' designs. Yet, Tate baldly stated this at the conference call. I suggest people listen to the conference call: It basically consolidates RAMBus's big-picture arguments in an extremely naked, unnuanced way. The contradictions just scream at you. Skip the first few minutes, which are fluff. At 14:40, there is the funny party of the conference call-- the one minute of no questions, followed by exactly one flunkee questioner, who goes on for about four minutes. Some of the highlights: "The revolutionary aspect of our company and its success has resulted in a great deal of envy among some companies locked into older business models in the highly competitive, commodity DRAM market... [who are fighting us] so that they would not have to change the way they do business. ...[it is clear that there is] a group effort by a few of these companies to defeat RAMBus, and a fear of RAMBus, so that they would not have to change the way they do business. They will not be successful in these efforts." He then talks about these the success of RDRAM. "RAMBus taught the DRAM memory industry a wide range of inventions including burst transfers, timing compensation using delay lock loops, low swing signaling, transfer on both edges of the clock, source synchronous clocking, and much, much more." Here is an industry representing what I consider to be the pinnacle of human engineering progress-- 50 years of sustained, monumental improvement, and RAMBus says the business model and means of engineering is "outdated" and needs to be replaced, all the while offering a chief ware that has not been empirically shown to accelerate or even maintain the existing performance curve. -Eric

To: Don Green who wrote (72774)	5/14/2001 2:17:15 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 93625

The case Rambus has brought against the memory manufacturers regards patent infringement. The case the memory manufacturers have brought against Rambus is largely the result of an industry that is resisting a long-overdue abandonment of an outdated model built upon cross licensing. The implications of this legal battle are far-reaching and portend a necessary change that must happen with regards to standards settings, if the industry truly wants to proceed and advance in a knowledge-based economy. At present, with the latest verdict against Rambus, there is little, if any reason for an intellectual property firm to join, or stay in a standards-setting body. Effectively, any IP firm that enters a committee like JEDEC will risk giving up their IP rights, and therefore forfeiting their potential for revenue. This has got to be the most short sighted, self centered, pro-broker dealer, pro-monopoly, anti-consumer piece of clap trap I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Its dumb, but its a classic tactic of anyone who makes a living by getting others to act in a manner which puts money in their pockets. Not that Fred came up with this one on his own. No, this pseudo-policy view is being run up the flag pole far to often to be his creation. I suspect that its now the "New and Improved" theme song of the boys at RMBS/INTC and will form the basis of the Defense "Story" they try to sell at the up coming MU trial. Now that the sophomoric "Dirty Huns vs Jack Armstrong" has come to naught, they will definitely need a new tune. I suppose this one is as good as any. The only problem is that its brain dead. Unfortunately, these suits aren't about the Fabs rejecting DRDRAM. They are about RMBS asserting ownership rights to SDRAM/DDR under circumstances which have proved credible to absolutely NO ONE except those with an interest in the share price of their stock. But hey, what do I know. Maybe RMBS can amend their answer and try to make this an anti trust case after all. Maybe they can convince a jury that JEDEC is populated by Mom & Pop Plumbers in EE clothing. Maybe they can convince a jury that DRDRAM is so "elegant" that it would obviously have been a success in the market were it not for the evil efforts of the Fabs to blacklist it. Maybe they can get a jury to even care whether RMBS can make a living inside JEDEC. Maybe they will find some court or some legislature some place that thinks we'd be better off letting INTC set all our standards for us. Maybe one day they can find a jury some where that doesn't think they are a pack of thieves. Or perhaps they will get other IP firms like RMTR to go testify about JEDEC "oppression" on their behalf. ...Naaaaaaaah, I don't think so.<Ho Ha 8-> Hopefully this poppy cock will succeed in dragging INTC into the mix. That would be lots of fun. And I am really looking forward to hearing some <hack> "expert" expound on the features of this "knowledge-based economy." What ever could that be? Standards by degree? Standards voted on by the heads of EE Departments at the top ten schools of engineering? Or does it mean we consumers are going to start getting some "Truth-in-Bandwidth" labeling? Or "Fair Benchmark Disclosures?" We know it won't mean a "knowledge-of-RMBS-IP-when-drafting-standards-based economy!" <HOOOOO HAAAAA 8-> Yeah we need a new paradigm. I am getting sick of these tired old supply/demand, price/performance market forces. These memory prices are just too damn cheap! How the heck are we supposed to increase productivity if we're running around with cheap memory! <Ho Ha 8-> 0\|0

To: Don Green who wrote (72774)	5/14/2001 3:22:25 AM
From: pheilman_	Respond to of 93625

One line from Fred Hager's portfolio excuse sums up his complete blindness: Despite the fact that we think outcome is a result of a monumental spin job by the Infineon attorneys,... What planet are you from Fred? That is what lawyers do, they advocate for their clients. Now it could be argued that corporate attorneys should not go to the extremes that criminal attorneys as prison time is not at stake. But that is the way it is.

To: Don Green who wrote (72774)	5/14/2001 9:41:23 AM
From: blake_paterson	Respond to of 93625

You didn't highlight the salient points: ....We can say this with conviction, based on our time in Richmond: the fraud charges are not justified. The case Rambus has brought against the memory manufacturers regards patent infringement. The case the memory manufacturers have brought against Rambus is largely the result of an industry that is resisting a long-overdue abandonment of an outdated model built upon cross licensing. The implications of this legal battle are far-reaching and portend a necessary change that must happen with regards to standards settings, if the industry truly wants to proceed and advance in a knowledge-based economy. At present, with the latest verdict against Rambus, there is little, if any reason for an intellectual property firm to join, or stay in a standards-setting body. Effectively, any IP firm that enters a committee like JEDEC will risk giving up their IP rights, and therefore forfeiting their potential for revenue. BP