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: SBHX who wrote (79660)	11/9/2001 12:41:21 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

SbH, Actually, owning a patent grants a monopoly only in the sense that anyone wishing to use the technology has to pay a reasonable fee. Owning a patent can be a monopoly in the sense that you don't have to let anyone use the patented idea in their product regardless of how much they want to pay you. If you own a patent and want to be the only organization to build products that use the patent, you have the right to do that. That's what patents are for. You are not required to license the technology/idea. If your product is wildly successful, then you have the opportunity to become a giant monopoly as the only supplier of the product. Dave

To: SBHX who wrote (79660)	11/9/2001 12:45:42 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 93625

Scared, Not being a lawyer and not having even done the due dilligence of reading those patents, all I say is speculation, but the jury did draw a conclusion of fraud, I also recall that rmbs' testimony on the fraud portion of the trial was extremely damaging to the company --- even croakerfrog in yahoo has admitted this point. As I recall, the case never made it to a jury. Judge Payne ruled that Rambus committed fraud. Ok, so be it. All this ruling has done is set a precedent. And, whenever a party amends claims during the examination of a patent application and that assignee sits on a standards body, the claim amendments will be in question.... Yes, Judge Payne did rule that Rambus committed fraud. However, it is not as bad as We could talk about whether IFX lawyers conceded that the patent with multiplex bus was in contention (they did) or whether they conceded the point on all bus (who knows, I wasn't there), but we won't get anywhere fast that way and neither of us will enjoy the journey. <g>. Infineon never alledged that the patents were invalid. They maintained that they were not infringing upon them given their narrow interpretation of "bus". This is a monopoly on the specific technology invented. However, when it becomes a standard and then to come after the fact when huge sums have already been invested in manufacturing to produce the products in the standard, then it becomes an absolute monopoly in the industry, where there is no choice but to pay. You seem to not like what Rambus charges. Well, the standard could always change. Corporations could choose not to make DRAM that might infringe upon the patent(s) in question. A corporation does not have to fab DRAM. They can go into another business.