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: J Krnjeu who wrote (79610)	11/7/2001 12:44:58 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

"Rambus patents that predated JEDEC where ruled not applicable because the judge went against the "INDUSTRY ACCEPTED TERMOLOGY" and redefined the definition of BUS to what he wanted." I am just curious, in what position you are to re-define definitions and rulings of the court? As BillyG noted, "Your theory was presented at trial and it held water about as well as a collander." "I really suggest you read the court papers. You will learn a great deal about the case." Maybe you need to become a little more familiar how the justice is done? Also, what makes you think that "industry-accepted" terms are clear enough to become "leaglly-accepted"? If you really have read the court papers, you should realize that the terminology was not simply "made up to suit a judge" but was put through very serious legal examination, and Rambus lost their arguments. Thanks, - Ali

To: J Krnjeu who wrote (79610)	11/7/2001 7:14:06 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 93625

JKrnjeu, Rambus patents that predated JEDEC where ruled not applicable because the judge went against the "INDUSTRY ACCEPTED TERMOLOGY" and redefined the definition of BUS to what he wanted. Partially correct, but not entirely. Judge Payne limited the term "bus" to the description in the specification and granted no equivalents to Rambus. While Judge Payne gave this narrow interpretation, I personally believe the courts will begin to interpret patents very narrowly in the future, limiting the number of equivalents assignees are entitled to. dave

To: J Krnjeu who wrote (79610)	11/7/2001 11:55:56 AM
From: BillyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

I really suggest you read the court papers. You will learn a great deal about the case. It would help if YOU read the court papers. Rambus freely admits in its brief just filed with the Federal Circuit appeals court that it wrote claims covering SDRAM inventions AFTER the JEDEC meetings. See page 3 of the brief, page 17 of the pdf. media.corporate-ir.net