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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnD who wrote (42686)	5/16/2001 9:36:38 AM
From: substancep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

JohnD, "FWIW" Not much. I see you spend a fair amount of time on the AMD thread. Maybe you can give us a clear idea of where memory tech is headed. P

To: JohnD who wrote (42686)	5/16/2001 2:26:49 PM
From: Knight	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

New Rambus article; cnbc.com FWIW, JohnD John, Thanks for posting that article (sincerely). I read it with interest--even though I strongly disagree. In fact, I think it is one of the most one-sided investment articles I have ever witnessed from a supposedly objective source. I don't claim, by any means, to be a RMBS expert. However, those with even a cursory understanding of RMBS know that the recent case has nothing whatsoever to do with RMBS patents for RDRAM (other than the reminder of the inherent risk of owning an IP-only company). Based on this article, I conclude that either: 1. the author is extremely ignorant of RMBS 2. the author is not ignorant of RMBS, and intentionally wrote this slanted article to manipulate the stock 3. RMBS has been egregiously fraudulent in its claims related to RDRAM-related IP (to the point of justifying a shareholder lawsuit) and all the companies who have signed licensing agreements with RMBS for RDRAM have been been extremely ignorant and incompetent since they obviously didn't apply enough due diligence to see that RMBS patent claims were invalid. My vote is for #1. I was contemplating purchasing some more RMBS prior to reading this article, since I think the current FUD has presented an almost unbelievable buying opportunity. However, until I read this article, I wasn't aware of just how egregiously slanted the FUD is. With misinformation this bad, I suspect I might be able to get it at an even cheaper price. Perhaps I'll wait another day.... Note: If the above words sound sarcastic or emotionally charged, rest assured, I don't intend for them to convey such a tone. (You won't see much from me here, since I'm mainly a lurker.)