Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in just
a few days isn't it?

rms

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in just
>a few days isn't it?

It was a patent that never should have existed in the first place.
Ironically enough, it was the same patent that I was joking about in
this newsgroup yesterday when I said that IBM's (now abandoned) patent
for bathroom queuing had more technical merit.

Of course, this is only one of the MANY patents held by the law firm
of Rambus, Scambus and Shambus. They've still go another 15+ that
they claim infringement on. Even if this patent is thrown out by the
FTC (which it should be if there's anyone halfway intelligent working
the case), Rambus will still proceed with their lawsuits.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in just
>a few days isn't it?

The reaction obviously proves the fact that RMBS trades based on
speculation and rumors, rather than technical or business merit. I'm
looking forward to the explanation for the revocation by the EPO... in "4-6
weeks". The language might give a clue to the direction they'll take on
the rest of the "portfolio" which is apparently still under appeal review.
In that respect, I'd tend to think that the revocation of the access timing
register patent might mean that the DLL and DDR ones could go as well.

I don't think it's going to have much influence on the FTC trial, one way
or the other. The important trial here in the U.S. is the Infineon one...
which if I understand things right has been reduced from 50 claims to 4.
Somehow it seems that all this mess for the sake of 4 dubious patents could
have been handled better... and would have been if Rambus was actually a
bona fide manufacturer, even a fabless one.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> >Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in just
> >a few days isn't it?
>
> It was a patent that never should have existed in the first place.
> Ironically enough, it was the same patent that I was joking about in
> this newsgroup yesterday when I said that IBM's (now abandoned) patent
> for bathroom queuing had more technical merit.
>
> Of course, this is only one of the MANY patents held by the law firm
> of Rambus, Scambus and Shambus. They've still go another 15+ that
> they claim infringement on. Even if this patent is thrown out by the
> FTC (which it should be if there's anyone halfway intelligent working
> the case), Rambus will still proceed with their lawsuits.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

You certainly don't let the facts get in the way of good story Tony.

However you ignorant anti-Rambus zealots should be happy with this
decision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome for
Rambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.

By the way, the FTC decision is due out on 17th Feb, although it can
be delayed for another 60 days if the Judge needs more time to make
his decision.

Tim Sullivan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: You certainly don't let the facts get in the way of good story Tony.
:
: However you ignorant anti-Rambus zealots should be happy with this
: decision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome for
: Rambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.
:
Ignorant RMBS shill. As soon as I saw this post yesterday I **knew**
that Tim Sullivan, aka 'John Corse' would come crawling out of his
rat-hole. Feeling a little stung after yesterday's stock slide,
cheerleader boy? What a loser!

J.

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in just
> >a few days isn't it?
>
> The reaction obviously proves the fact that RMBS trades based on
> speculation and rumors, rather than technical or business merit.

RMBS trades on future earnings like most stock and this decision does
lower the expected future earnings thus the drop in share price.
Rambus business was hurt by this decision so I dispute your use of
loaded language.

> I'm
> looking forward to the explanation for the revocation by the EPO... in "4-6
> weeks". The language might give a clue to the direction they'll take on
> the rest of the "portfolio" which is apparently still under appeal review.
> In that respect, I'd tend to think that the revocation of the access timing
> register patent might mean that the DLL and DDR ones could go as well.
>

Yes, will be reason will be interesting. The 3 reasons the Micron,
Hynix and Infineon applied to have the patent revoked were
impermissible broadening, lack of clarity and prior art. Most likely
only if the reason is prior art will it have an effect on the US
litigation.

> I don't think it's going to have much influence on the FTC trial, one way
> or the other.

This decision will have absolutely no influence on the FTC trial. The
FTC case is an anti-trust action to stop Rambus enforcing its'
presumed valid patents. The FTC plays no role in determining if
patents are valid like the EPO does or Federal Courts/CAFC/Supreme
Court do in the USA.

> The important trial here in the U.S. is the Infineon one...
> which if I understand things right has been reduced from 50 claims to 4.

The claims have been reduced to 4 and look likely to be reduced to 3.
Trial is due to begin in May.

> Somehow it seems that all this mess for the sake of 4 dubious patents could
> have been handled better... and would have been if Rambus was actually a
> bona fide manufacturer, even a fabless one.
>

Maybe your opinion is correct and the patents are dubious, however the
fact that Rambus is not a manufacturer, "even fabless one" is
irrelevant. If you got your wish, there would be no pure R&D companies
that licenced their patented technology. In high capital requirement
industries this would result in even more oligopolistic behaviour than
we see at the moment. There would be no outside competitive forces to
require these industries to innovate at a reasonable pace. You don't
work for one of these oligopolies that would benefit if pure IP
companies were outlawed?

> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

(E-Mail Removed) (John Corse) wrote:

>You certainly don't let the facts get in the way of good story Tony.

That's quite ironic coming from you, John. Do you remember your claim
of "DDR Dead Dead Dead"?

>However you ignorant anti-Rambus zealots should be happy with this
>decision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome for
>Rambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.

Poor JC. Did you get caught long on Rambust?

On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Tim
Sullivan) wrote:
>You certainly don't let the facts get in the way of good story Tony.

Beetle-rambus, BEETLE-rambus, BEETLE-RAMBUS!!!

Ohh hey look, a Rambus story is posted and Tim appears!

>However you ignorant anti-Rambus zealots should be happy with this
>decision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome for
>Rambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.

And I'm sure you know exactly what the patent covers and why it should
not have been revoked right? For anyone who's interested, here's the
patent, all 139 pages of it:

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bn...++9116680A1+I+


As best as I can tell, the corresponding US patent is number
6,598,171, available here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,598,171


If you want to do some reading, you might want to start with the US
Patent as it's only about 25 pages of legal jargon. For those who
want the quick version, here's the abstract:


<quoting>
The present invention includes a memory subsystem comprising at least
two semiconductor devices, including at least one memory device,
connected to a bus, where the bus includes a plurality of bus lines
for carrying substantially all address, data and control information
needed by said memory devices, where the control information includes
device-select information and the bus has substantially fewer bus
lines than the number of bits in a single address, and the bus carries
device-select information without the need for separate device-select
lines connected directly to individual devices. The present invention
also includes a protocol for master and slave devices to communicate
on the bus and for registers in each device to differentiate each
device and allow bus requests to be directed to a single or to all
devices. The present invention includes modifications to prior-art
devices to allow them to implement the new features of this invention.
In a preferred implementation, 8 bus data lines and an AddressValid
bus line carry address, data and control information for memory
addresses up to 40 bits wide.
<end quote>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

"jack" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<c0i5se$17kosh$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Tim Sullivan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> : You certainly don't let the facts get in the way of good story Tony.
> :
> : However you ignorant anti-Rambus zealots should be happy with this
> : decision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome for
> : Rambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.
> :
> Ignorant RMBS shill. As soon as I saw this post yesterday I **knew**
> that Tim Sullivan, aka 'John Corse' would come crawling out of his
> rat-hole. Feeling a little stung after yesterday's stock slide,
> cheerleader boy? What a loser!
>
> J.

:yawn:

On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:01:52 GMT) it happened Tony Hill
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Tim
>Sullivan) wrote:
>>You certainly don't let the facts get in the way of good story Tony.
>
>Beetle-rambus, BEETLE-rambus, BEETLE-RAMBUS!!!
>
>Ohh hey look, a Rambus story is posted and Tim appears!
>
>>However you ignorant anti-Rambus zealots should be happy with this
>>decision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome for
>>Rambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.
>
>And I'm sure you know exactly what the patent covers and why it should
>not have been revoked right? For anyone who's interested, here's the
>patent, all 139 pages of it:
>
>http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bn...++9116680A1+I+
>
>
>As best as I can tell, the corresponding US patent is number
>6,598,171, available here:
>
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...1=6,598,171.WK
>U.&OS=PN/6,598,171&RS=PN/6,598,171
>
>
>If you want to do some reading, you might want to start with the US
>Patent as it's only about 25 pages of legal jargon. For those who
>want the quick version, here's the abstract:
>
>
><quoting>
>The present invention includes a memory subsystem comprising at least
>two semiconductor devices, including at least one memory device,
>connected to a bus, where the bus includes a plurality of bus lines
>for carrying substantially all address, data and control information
>needed by said memory devices, where the control information includes
>device-select information and the bus has substantially fewer bus
>lines than the number of bits in a single address, and the bus carries
>device-select information without the need for separate device-select
>lines connected directly to individual devices. The present invention
>also includes a protocol for master and slave devices to communicate
>on the bus and for registers in each device to differentiate each
>device and allow bus requests to be directed to a single or to all
>devices. The present invention includes modifications to prior-art
>devices to allow them to implement the new features of this invention.

Until here it exactly describes i2c (IIC) by Philips, which is public
(if yo uuse their chips).

>In a preferred implementation, 8 bus data lines and an AddressValid
Oops, that was used via DMA output in some old Apple ? or some
other thing, Atari? had a DMA output port, don't remember, no was
different, had 2 channel select lines or so, but wait 'preferred
implementation', now all other ones are screwed too.



>bus line carry address, data and control information for memory
>addresses up to 40 bits wide.
Its obvious a serial protocol, so anything goes as 'width'.
Why stop at 40? You could make more bucks by specifying
4000000.
But then patent would be expired...


This sort of stuff really would lean heavy on designers, other companies,
no way around it. Good it is thrown out.