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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (75095)	6/28/2001 3:26:42 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

good to know they didn't get away with their crime. Skeeter there was no "crime" committed. It is like saying that if you breached your contract you committed a crime. This is a civil proceeding not criminal. Your bias really does show. Such as using comments from Craig Barrett regarding "dependent upon third parties," etc. That comment is taken out of context as well as is also evidenced by the fact that Intel's future road map has not changed in regard to RDRAM despite this "big mistake." There seems to be little of objective fact posted on this thread anymore. But of course we should take the comments of Infineon's lead litigator as gospel truth. Give me a break. If you personally hate the company fine. But if you want to discuss it a little objectivity and a lot less advocacy would go a long way. Tinker

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (75095)	6/28/2001 5:17:26 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Skeeter, the last sentence in your post: "What you did," Infineon lawyer John Desmarais asked Crisp on the stand, "was work on new claims for the Rambus pending patent applications, and your intent was to make them broad enough that they would cover an SDRAM using the features that you had seen at prior meetings. Isn't that a fact?" Crisp answered, "In some cases that was true."<< is interesting, but I do not understand why it is relevant. The claims cannot cover more than what was in the original specification. If Crisp found a way to make the claims cover even information disclosed in JEDEC, he could not have claimed material not in the specification, so whether he was or not influenced by hat he heard at the JEDEC meeting seems to me irrelevant.It just says to me that the original specification might have been broad enough to cover material later adopted as a standard by JEDEC. It is the examiner's job to determine if the breadth of a claim is not justified based on the specification (the specification predates any of the meetings attended by Crisp, at least, that is my understanding.) Zeev