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: tinkershaw who wrote (73390)	5/21/2001 9:37:49 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi tinkershaw; Yes, I do have my agenda: I'm going to buy Tate's desk at the bankruptcy auction, LOL. But by bringing this up, you're hardly advancing the argument that Rambus didn't commit fraud. Do you have answers for the Judge's points in Docket 220 that I linked in or not? See #reply-15631925 I really do want you to read the above and comment on it. I would much rather here you describe which of the points that made up the fraud that the Judge was wrong about then to have you post that you still haven't figured out what the elements of the fraud are. Justice is (ideally) the blind goddess. You're a lawyer, so you're supposed to have your eyes open. No need to guess about the fraud elements, they're listed in order. -- Carl P.S. And what's your agenda? So far it seems it is to set fields of strawmen on fire by making anile (see comment on Justice) generalities that don't apply to this case.

To: tinkershaw who wrote (73390)	5/21/2001 9:59:52 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93625

BTW Bilow, You never answered my simple question of 1-2 weeks ago. Please name one mass market DDR desktop product that DDR is in. Not graphics cards but as memory. A product that is selling in the millions of units, oh, like RDRAM is. Seems you like to ignore the most basic and important questions and convolute the board with the irrelevant and overly complex. A well known form of subterfuge. Of course you had to by-pass this question, becasue an honest answer would be NONE, BUT JUST WAIT 90 MORE DAYS. But heck, RDRAM is only an interim solution by Intel, right? {sarcasm all}. BTW, if the patent case was as closed and shut as you say, as quoted from Judge Payne, then why in the world did 1/2 of the DRAM industry sign SDRAM and DDR licensing agreements. We are talking .75% and 3.5% + controllers. That is not small change. If Judge Payne's decision is proper, this use of the term bus would have been apparent from the file and available for all of these parties, like Samsung and their army of attorneys to have seen. Instead they reviewed the patents and signed very lucrative licensing agreements for Rambus. The answer quite frankly is because the history of the case is not as straight-forward as your quote from Judge Payne's notes. If it were, then a large number of very smart people, with a whole lot of money riding on the decision, who are experts in their fields, made some very, very, stupid decision. Maybe they did. Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is a little more going on than you like to admit. Oh, like your failure to answer my above question about RDRAM vs. DDR in the desktop marketplace. Tinker