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: Dave B who wrote (77559)	8/16/2001 3:28:20 PM
From: Don Green	Respond to of 93625

VIA chipset may anger Intel Corp CHALLENGE: In defiance of US-based giant Intel, the leading local designer of chips for computers is making a product that is compatible with Pentium4 By Dan Nystedt STAFF REPORTER VIA Technologies Inc («Â²±¹q¤l), Taiwan's largest chip designer, launched a new chipset yesterday. The move is sure to raise the ire of the world's leading chipmaker, Intel Corp. VIA announced the release of the P4x266 chipset, which is designed for use with Intel Pentium4 chips. Chipsets act as a central nervous system in a computer, controlling the flow of data between the CPU, memory and other components. VIA introduced the product without the customary licensing agreement from Intel. To that end, the two companies appear set to relive a battle fought last year over the right of VIA to make a chipset compatible with an Intel CPU without a license from Intel. "We believe that we are not infringing on any Intel patents ... The license issue is a business consideration, not a legal one," said Ted Lee (§õÁoµ²), vice president of marketing at VIA. In order to create chipsets for use with Intel CPUs, companies generally negotiate a licensing agreement with the US-based multinational first. Last year, VIA made chipsets designed for Intel's Pentium III CPU. VIA wagered the market would be receptive to a product that would be less expensive than Rambus-based memory chips. It shipped its new chipsets without a license and Intel sued. "There were some legal actions and they have been concluded," Richard Brown, director of marketing at VIA said. "We were found not to have made any infringements on the [Intel] patents." Via was forced to pay the licensing fee, however. The gamble won big returns for VIA. The market snapped up VIA-made chipsets -- to the detriment of Intel's chipset business -- enabling the Taiwanese firm to capture a third of the global chipset market. VIA's revenues grew 171 percent to NT$31 billion (US$936 million) last year, and this year, the firm is looking for another memory-based win. Pentium4 chips are currently only found with Rambus memory, but VIA -- and the worldwide memory chip industry -- have a less expensive alternative, called DDR memory. Analysts say that because of its contract with Rambus Inc, Intel is not allowed to produce chipsets compatible with DDR memory until 2002, which gives VIA a five-month head start. To slow VIA down, Intel has refused to issue a license for the new chipset, said one analyst who requested anonymity. The company has gone so far as to warn motherboard makers in Taiwan against using VIA's P4x266 chipsets. In response, Taiwan's top motherboard makers, Asustek Computer Inc (µØºÓ¹q¸£), Gigabyte Technology Co (§Þ¹Å¬ì§Þ), Micro-Star International Co Ltd (·L¬P¬ì§Þ) and Elitegroup Computer Systems Ltd (ºë^¹q¸£), have all acquiesced to Intel, and plan to wait until Via acquires a license before putting VIA chipsets on their motherboards. VIA, however, says business is humming. "We are starting to ship to various motherboard manufacturers in Taiwan," Brown said. He also pledged that VIA would "indemnify [motherboard and other component makers] against any kind of suit that would be incurred should Intel decide to go along that route."

To: Dave B who wrote (77559)	8/16/2001 4:10:31 PM
From: BillyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

No reason to address Carl's behavior on the thread -- his suspensions and deleted messages speak for themselves. I’ve been a lurker here for a long time and I’m amazed that so many people want to shoot the messenger. Bilow has been consistently accurate in his comments and predictions. His hilarious fictional letter that got him booted from SI for a few days has panned out to be largely true. As Bilow correctly predicted, the infringement claims were thrown out, there was a fraud verdict, Rambus was ordered to pay IFX’s attorney fees, and the class action sharks are circling for the kill. Bilow was correct about this company and many of you were wrong. Of course you may have been hoodwinked by the company in the same way they tried to hoodwink Judge Payne. The difference is that the judge and jury caught them red-handed. Judge Payne’s ruling is not yet on the Rambusite. Someone showed me a copy and it is filled with serious facts-- not opinion -- about the Rambus tactics that were proved at trial. Read this quote from pages 27-28 of Judge Payne’s August 9 ruling. Call the courthouse and get a copy for yourself. – LOL! Back to lurk mode. ========= b. False Testimony by Rambus Executives Rambus representatives also hindered discovery efforts by providing false or misleading testimony. For example, Richard Crisp (a former executive, now consultant to Rambus) testified in his first deposition that he “never, ever” participated in Rambus’ patent drafting efforts. However, when he was confronted with documents obtained after the piercing of the attorney-client privilege, Crisp was forced to admit that he directed which claims should be filed in response to the technology discussions at JEDEC. Similarly, Rambus’ Chief Executive Officer, Geoff Tate, at his first deposition, testified that he did not believe that Rambus drafted claims to cover JEDEC’s standard-setting work (indeed, he stated that he did not know that it was possible to amend patent claims), but, at trial he admitted, upon being prodded by reference to the belatedly obtained documents, that he knew that Rambus was amending its patent applications to cover the JEDEC SDRAM standard. Rambus seeks to explain these contradictions by arguing that Crisp and Tate suffered from a memory lapse at their first depositions. That explanation simply strains credulity. ==========

To: Dave B who wrote (77559)	8/16/2001 7:17:31 PM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 93625

Dave, Despite the circus atmosphere here the last two years, and Carl's extreme methods. I'd have to say that he has been pretty accurate in predicting the demise of rdram as a viable mainstream technology (so far). I think many just don't like the fact that he has been vindicated. (The colorful insults came from all sides, not just Carl) And although many nimble traders have made money on the swings here, many others have been hurt bad. Great trading sense for being able to make so much out of the swings, but I doubt if that is something to be proud of. Think of the ones left holding the bag here. A quick analysis can show how much gains Farmwald, Horowitz, Tate, Harmon and other insiders have made out of rmbs last year, now tell me who the rmbs longs should be after? As for me, trading in this stock was always a sideline and my gains are miniscule as I never believed in the technology, I did believe their lawyers had teeth though, and was curious how far lawyers can carry a company like this.