SI
SI
discoversearch

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: pheilman_ who wrote (77518)8/15/2001 10:38:41 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
Hi pheilman_; That's part of my motivation. If Rambus had been successful the tech industry would have been destroyed by all the companies who do real innovation and produce real products sloughing off their unprofitable manufacturing and design operations and becoming IP (i.e. lawyer) companies only.

Instead, what we see is the garbage being taken out to the dump, LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now the founders have multiple lawsuits filed against them. I can hardly wait to see what they have to say for themselves in court. "How could I have known? I was just a Full Professor at Stanford, didn't really know anything about patents and inventing", LOL!!!

-- Carl

P.S. Did you catch my post noting Samsung is reducing their mix of RDRAM in their production?



To: pheilman_ who wrote (77518)8/15/2001 11:45:26 PM
From: Dave B  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93625
 
pheilman,

I appreciate your response. That rationale has been discussed before on the thread, and the reality is that royalties are paid in every industry to companies for their IP (IP is not just traded). The RMBS model would have changed nothing other than possibly extending it to Carl's business which probably is used to trading it (I don't know, for example, if TI gets any cash royalties from memory IP). If others had come along and also invented memory technology that was needed by the industry, then they, too, should be paid. The patenting process is actually in place to protect the small inventor, not the large one. Several years ago, the major manufacturers admitted that they had been too focused on the chip-level technology, not the interface-level technology. So Rambus focused on that area. And the lawsuits and extensions of the patents have little or nothing to do with the animosity as Carl and others were here telling us how evil the technology/company was long before the lawsuits were filed (back when they were just trying to get RDRAM going). The attempt by Rambus to extend the royalties to SDRAM and DDR DRAM certainly increased the animosity, but by no means created it.

And in particular, Rambus came into Carl's field and ignored all the prior developments and treated all the manufacturers as idiots. It is OK to have angry customers if one is truly a gorilla, but not if one is a gorilla by proxy.

I'm not sure what you mean about ignoring all prior developments -- certainly Rambus didn't go back and try to re-patent every DRAM patent that exists. Based on the statement above made by the "memory industry", I'd say they generally tried to augment the core technology (and, indeed, RDRAM is built on top of the SDRAM core).

I won't argue about the attitude that Rambus has taken. I believe they could have handled the management of the relationships much better.

See, we don't care to make money on Rambus, it is just that Rambus success means failure for any company actually making something.

Interesting point of view. I disagree with the entire premise that a company can't be founded solely to generate IP, but I'll have to give some thought to some precise reasons for you.

Thanks again,

Dave