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 (72862)	5/14/2001 6:48:41 PM
From: Eric K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

John-- Re: Nobody claims, for example, that using both edges of a clock to time data transfers was Rambus' invention. Actually, Geoff Tate claimed at Friday's conference call that RAMBus "taught" the oUtDaTeD dRaM makers the invention of transferring data on both the rising and falling edges of the clock, as well as "much, much more." -Eric

To: John Walliker who wrote (72862)	5/14/2001 8:13:49 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 93625

John, "..and the ability to have a bus longer than one bit-time makes for totally cast-iron patent protection of the "crown jewels". You must be confused. First, Rambus did not invent "longer than one bit-time bus". They had an economically-challenged single-domain idea. Their patented idea has failed miserably. The long Ram-bus was invented and patented by Intel: delphion.com US6173345:Method and apparatus for levelizing transfer delays for a channel of devices such as memory devices in a memory subsystem. "..it is perfectly valid to combine together previously known techniques to make a new combination and to patent that." Hereby you concede that there were no new "techniques" embedded into the original Rambus application, but a novel combination of thereof. Then the question for you: what did differentiate the Ram-bus from other DRAM-busses? The answer was found in the court: the Rambus was essentially address/data/control multiplexed. They explicitly used the tri-bus DRAM interface as a "bad" prior art they were going to improve. That was that "crown jewel" that allowed PTO to admit some novelity and eventually issue patents. The multiplexed idea and the corresponding "low-pin-count" ran through all Rambus patents. Now you write: "The difficulty has been that the original bus definition was very tightly drawn". It is not a "difficulty", it is a principal point of the whole Rambus "invention". With broader definitions there would be no patent at all, I think. - Ali