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: Ali Chen who wrote (79617)	11/7/2001 12:20:50 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Ali, The question is this, while rambus had particulars regarding the bus, timing, etc. described in their specification, those particulars were not claimed (where Rambus receives their protection). Instead, Rambus used the terminology of "bus". When you talk about the prior art, still the prior art failed to invalidate the patent(s). Think about it this way, ali. That particular decision muddied the waters for any patent holder who plans on asserting their patent rights in the courts. IMO, since rambus used Industry standard terminology, I believe that they should receive multiple equivalents and the patent not interpretted so narrowly...