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 (79729)	11/12/2001 11:18:39 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, "Are you inferring that Rambus filed patent applications based upon the disclosures of others during the standards settings? If so, actually, you are incorrect." No. I am referring to publications of SCI (Scalable Computer Interface) which contained DDR ideas and programmable control registers. The SCI had presentations at MIPS where one of Rambus founders was employed at the time. It was before the original 1991 Rambus application. "The combination of well known ideas can be patentable, Ali, if those well known ideas are non-obvious together..." Yes, it can be patentable. The point you are missing again is that the patented original idea did not work. "Rambus just changed the scope of protection w/i the claims of those patent applications (if that is true)." Yes, it definitely seems like that. Unfortunately, the problem with that is that the extension is not "w/i" the original claims for all-in-one bus as you represent it, but outside, obviously conflicting with their own citations of conventional memory busses as prior art. That's where the Markman ruling came from. Also, is not it true that the court qualified the way of how that "change the scope of protection" was obtained as a fraud?