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 who wrote (79614)	11/7/2001 11:38:36 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, "...If so, that terminology will be interpretted in view of the specification. ... The interesting point of this case is that rambus used industry standard terminology, i.e. "bus", in their patent, however the judge interpretted "bus" very narrowly." I don't think it is the simple matter of narrow interpretation. There are a couple of important points to consider: 1. In fact, all elements under the dispute (timing register, dual data rate, etc) were published in preliminary SCI publications which predates Rambus application, and therefore were essentially a public domain. 2. The only relevant novelty in the early Rambus application was that those public domain elements were vaguely intertwined into their new and special 3-in-one RamBUS. To get the patent, they have to distance themselves from ordinary control- address-data busses referring to them as prior art which their invention was going to improve. Therefore the narrow interpretation of the bus was essential. 3. When JEDEC essentially rejected Rambus propositions to use the stupid 3-in-1 time-multiplexed bus and took another path with more conventional bus structure, Rambus devised the plot against the industry, which was uncovered and proven in the court. 4. To undermine the memory industry, Rambus applied for continuation of their initial application after attending the JEDEC meetings where the future industry standard was shaping out, now with the timing registers and such as now essential elements on the "invention". But they forgot that they explicitly excluded the SDRAM-type bus from their original application. Therefore the continuation should be interpreted with narrow definition of bus. 5. If someone tends to think that those elements can be applicable to any definition of bus, go back to point #1. This is the kind of reasoning I believe was behind the legal obscurity. IMHO. Regards, - Ali