Re: Not so dead, *dead*, DEAD!

> >Rambus has PCIe products, and I know for a fact that there is at least
> >one major graphics company using their products:
> >http://www.rambus.com/products/pciexpress/index.aspx
>
> There's no mention of any "major graphics" supplier there. From what I see
> they seem to be present as an embedded(?) PHY supplier and if it works and
> the price is reasonable, good luck to them. Let them compete with the
> others in that market.

My point was that a major graphics chipset company is using their PHY,
which probably means that they do a good job. Obviously, both ATI and
NVidia have good engineers, yet one of them decided to work with
rambus...

> What do you not understand about info from inside Intel to do with
> "designing" How could you possibly take that to mean anything to do with
> stock value? "Negative margins" was a reference to the timings of the
> DRDRAM channel as recounted by a former Intel employee. I can give a
> reference but if you're too lazy.........

Interesting. Well I'm sure you know what gross margins and net margins
are....if those margins are negative, they would be "negative margins".
My apologies for misinterpreting.

> You know you need to get a grip David, and quit firing off knee-jerk junk
> posts -- two to one of mine is hardly reasonable. I'm not going to bother
> even reading the first one in this series.

My newsreader (google groups) had some issues, my apologies.

> >> > Now, their products are specialized
> >> >and there was an attempt to shove them into a niche they didn't
> >> >fit...but that failed, partially due to rather illegal cartel action by
> >> >the DRAM vendors.
> >>
> >> The important thing is that they didn't get the "niche" they wanted. Your
> >> "cartel" allegations I addressed elsewhere and I won't repeat.
> >
> >I don't really think you did address them satisfactorily. Not only do
> >the DRAM manufacturers have a prior history of antitrust violations,
> >but Samsung already plead guilty to artificially raising the price of
> >RDRAM. If you'll recall the main complaint of most users was that
> >RDRAM was too expensive...funny that.
> >http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=174402774
>
> I thought we lived in a captalist system - mfrs have the right to pick &
> choose the technology they adopt.

Individually, but not as a cartel. There are restrictions on how
groups of companies can behave.

> If I'm the only guy selling something
> I'd figure I have a right to charge whatever the market will bear; if the
> market is short of something, like e.g. refined petroleum, you pay more.
> Rambus' whinging on this issue is pathetic; one assumes they must
> fab-outsource for prototype parts - let them do similarly for production...
> or build a fab. They have been documented as behaving unethically in
> business

Hardly worse than anyone else in the DRAM business...

> - people would rather not have done business with them... that's
> how it works. So Samsung copped a plea to end the angst... BFD... but
> another enemy for Rambus... the only "friend" they had in the memory
> business.

> 50:4 is a poor ratio by any standards - at that level it reeks of a
> plundering exercise gone wrong.

As I said before, that's a LAWYER issue, not a technology/patenting
issue.

> They should have been censured for wasting
> the court's time with frivolous claims - in many cases a court would have
> been correct in rejecting the whole 50, on principle.

Uh?

> >You have provided no evidence that relates to 'bad patents', only
> >patent violations, which as I have said is distinct from a misbegotten
> >patent.
>
> Facts are facts. The courts are there to hopefully correct the
> inadequacies/incomptence of the patent system. If a court will not stand
> behind a claim the validity of the patent is certainly in doubt. D'oh, it
> cannot be enforced.

Invalid patent --> no violations, yet somehow you think this goes the
other way? That makes no sense. How do you know the defendents didn't
just show noninfringement? I don't seem to recall the courts finding
the patents invalid...

DK

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Not so dead, *dead*, DEAD!
    ... >>>Rambus has PCIe products, and I know for a fact that there is at least ... >Hardly worse than anyone else in the DRAM business... ... >> inadequacies/incomptence of the patent system. ... If a court will not stand ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Supremes "Buy It Now" in eBays favor
    ... Supreme Court Sides With Ebay on Patent Issue ... the courts have seen a wave of patent infringement claims. ... BlackBerry wireless device faced a court order that threatened to shut down ...
    (alt.marketing.online.ebay)
  • Re: Proposal for Small Business IP program to create jobs
    ... version of the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. ... of SBIR patent rights by simply applying for the patent before ... employee salaries and support costs have ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Pinball Decals, Inc Stole My TZ Camera Design
    ... lawyer fees/taking him to court, or paying to have the design ... Also anyone that has ever looked into copyright infringement laws ... before the patent or copyright was in place…and PDI can ask fort even ... The use of a minimum copying standard deals ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: The Experts Speak.
    ... and his WFC was never demonstrated to the patent office. ... HIS PROCESSS IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT ELECTROLYSIS. ... > the court, and was found guilty of fraud. ... >For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)