PC industry will die because of Rambus win

[timsullivan2003]

Shhhhhh.

It's not wise to point out the delusions of crazy people.

 

[David Kanter]

Professor Mark A. Horowitz's early work on high-speed, low-power CMOS data
link interfaces ultimately led to applications of high-performance memory
access. You may say he laid out the foundations of RAMBUS, but calling him
the founder of Rambus is absurb. He works for Standford University, not
RAMBUS.

See http://www.rambus.com/about/executive/index.aspx

To quote:

Mark Horowitz, Ph.D., Chief Scientist

"Dr. Horowitz was named Rambus Chief Scientist in May 2005. Prior to
this appointment, he served as a director and also served as vice
president from 1990-1994 since co-founding Rambus in March 1990. As
Chief Scientist, Horowitz is responsible for assembling teams to
evaluate trends and look for opportunities to apply Rambus's high-speed
signaling expertise to various markets. Dr. Horowitz has taught at
Stanford University since 1984 where he is currently a professor of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He holds B.S. and M.S.
degrees in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
Stanford University."

DK

 

[David Kanter]

So the stock is volatile, big deal. That has nothing to do with what I

Only if you choose to reject my POV and peer through *your* keyhole.
You think the volatility is due to institutions getting in and out on a
cycle of a few days? It's a symptom!

Well it could very well be institutionals moving. Rambus definitely
was a lot more attractive by a VERY LARGE amount after winning that
Hynix case. Similarly, if they lose on appeal, the stock becomes less
attractive. Some institutionals will react to that as will
individuals.

That is distinct from reacting to some crap that someone posts on
c.s.i.p.h.c.

It depends on the stock and the time frame. Institutional investors are
(still) wary of RMBS for its very volatility - back then they knew there
were a bunch of insiders just waiting to pounce... which they did.

I wasn't following back then, but that seems reasonable.

1/3 is a significant portion, especially when considering the bias towards
gamblers' stocks like RMBS - it atrracts them like flies to a pile of shit.
Who do you think the RMBS mosquitoes are who are flitting around here right
now and why are they doing it? You don't think day-traders had any effect
on the market?Ô_õ

Uhh, that would be "affect" the market... and according to his boasts, yes
he seemed to think his boosting had an effect... not here but this was
apparently a "supporting" forum for his other stock board chatter... Yahoo
was mentioned at the time and the tone/language/style matched.

Well, I don't know who john corse is, but if he's claiming that posting
to NGs and discussion boards matter, then I'm going to be very dubious.
I can claim to be king of england, but we all know how much that sort
of claim is worth ; )

Now perhaps if he is posting to a private board for instititutionals
and analysts, then I might consider that there is kernel of truth to
such a claim, but not a public NG.

Investment banks have err, anal...ysts who boost the stock with their
weird, often unfathomable "ratings" - they claim to have umm "formulae" and
"methods" but it's all a game. When a stock won't stand any more upward
guidance, they dump... and downrate shortly after to prep the next cycle.
They have vastly disproportionate power over the market relative to their
(lack of) expertise - even if you hate what they say, ignore at your peril.

Investment banks only control a portion of the market. Mutual funds
are typically done by separate companies. For instance, I don' t think
CALPERS or vanguard does Ibanking...in fact, I know they don't.

DK

 

[chrisv]

Short of zombies, I don't think so. John Corse appeared
to be posting from the South Carolina coast. Tim Sullivan
appears to be posting from Melbourne, Australia.

That proves nothing. In any case, he's still JC to me. 8)

 

[chrisv]

Shhhhhh.

It's not wise to point out the delusions of crazy people.

Do you still think "DDR dead, dead, dead", John?

 

[chrisv]

Thanks for proving my point by arguing the person rather than the
facts. I see you conveniently ignored the evidence I posted.

How many 'nyms do you have, John?

 

[George Macdonald]

Well it could very well be institutionals moving. Rambus definitely
was a lot more attractive by a VERY LARGE amount after winning that
Hynix case. Similarly, if they lose on appeal, the stock becomes less
attractive. Some institutionals will react to that as will
individuals.

The MU RICO case is going to be more err, "interesting" IMO, not to mention
the suit for damages due to the over-zealous raid on Micron offices in
Italy. As for the Hynix case, it doesn't seem to have had much positive
effect on the stock at all - it's been mostly sliding downwards ever since.

We're not just taking about right now exclusively - this is about the
history of RMBS pumping.....

That is distinct from reacting to some crap that someone posts on
c.s.i.p.h.c.

........ on various media and in various forums. Seems like c.s.i.p.h.c has
a little more respect than you are willing to accord it - explains a lot.

Well, I don't know who john corse is,

EXACTLY - you had to live through that stuff to know. Ask Dean - he was
very active here at that time and was instrumental in getting him
silenced.... or go look up the archives.

but if he's claiming that posting
to NGs and discussion boards matter, then I'm going to be very dubious.
I can claim to be king of england, but we all know how much that sort
of claim is worth ; )

You can be dubious as much as you want - it doesn't change the fact that he
claimed to have made big $$ by buying and selling RMBS and he was pumping
it everywhere.

Now perhaps if he is posting to a private board for instititutionals
and analysts, then I might consider that there is kernel of truth to
such a claim, but not a public NG.

This NG has subscribers who are "experts" to the rabble on stock boards -
it may not be the greatest one but it *is* a reference... especially to an
ignoramus who wants to "believe".

Investment banks only control a portion of the market. Mutual funds
are typically done by separate companies. For instance, I don' t think
CALPERS or vanguard does Ibanking...in fact, I know they don't.

D'oh - there is no one sector which "controls" the market.<shrug>

 

[Guest]

Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn
I SHAME ON YOU!!!
said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I
believe

I believe the relevant part of my post is (starting with your
statement....) ">>> Rambus will never find friends in the sector, if not
the entire

business
world again. It could find partners, but only from the very few
companies
which also have monopoly ambition, like IBM.

[to Ar Q]How about their err, partnership with AMD?;-)

I believe you are full of excrement as well as misguided about IBM and
Rambus."

which was not sufficiently clear apparently. Perhaps I should have put
parenthesis around (IBM and Rambus). You know nothing about the
relationship, yet you describe it at being "partners" due to IBM
allegedly having monopoly ambition and implying that IBM has no better
ethics than rambus.

At the very least this is jumping to conclusions on the basis of no data
about IBM's motives, intentions, or actions.

The real situation is, those who know, aren't talking. I had thought it
might be safe to finally fess up, but now I'm not so sure. On the good
side, I got rid of ALL of my Rambus materials YEARS ago, except the
RambusD technical manual, as a "design souvenier." It's now old enough
to be techically interesting, but no longer significant. Actually, the
design data may still be laying around on disk, somewhere. I never got
around to cleaning it out, and the design data in the toolset used for
that design was awfully dense, so the storage is a nit compared to
current designs.

I never knew much about the contract, and remember even less, but I know
a that a heck of a lot is erroneously presented here, as well as having
had friends sitting on the JEDEC committees during the whole timeframe.

Again, I thought this was water under the bridge, but apparently it
isn't, so now I'll shut up. You'll never get real facts, here or on
investment boards. We need an equivalent of Godwin's Law here.

DEP (sits 1 floor down from KRW)

 

[Tony Hill]

Short of zombies, I don't think so. John Corse appeared
to be posting from the South Carolina coast. Tim Sullivan
appears to be posting from Melbourne, Australia.

I also think if you did a lexical analysis, it would show
different authors.

"John Corse" is more an *idea* than a man. It's the ideology of being
so completely certain of Rambus' righteousness and the power of RBMS
stock that they will defend and promote the company at all cost. They
take the support of a company far beyond being a simple "fanboy",
stretching it to the point of a religion. Attempting to have a
meaningful discussion with a Corsian about anything computer-related
will inevitably lead to tangential rants about the supreme greatness
that is RDRAM and the incontestable supremacy of Rambus' technology,
as well as vileness that stems from the evil pentaverate of memory
manufacturers (Micron, Hynix, Infineon, Samsung and Nanya). By
trolling with a few barbed comments, the Corsian always manages to
hook the masses and the discussion rapidly regresses to pointless name
calling and excessive use of the term "ad hominem".

 

[Keith]

"John Corse" is more an *idea* than a man. It's the ideology of being
so completely certain of Rambus' righteousness and the power of RBMS
stock that they will defend and promote the company at all cost. They
take the support of a company far beyond being a simple "fanboy",
stretching it to the point of a religion. Attempting to have a
meaningful discussion with a Corsian about anything computer-related
will inevitably lead to tangential rants about the supreme greatness
that is RDRAM and the incontestable supremacy of Rambus' technology,

....and when has a "Corsian" had any technical argument (timsullivan
included)?

as well as vileness that stems from the evil pentaverate of memory
manufacturers (Micron, Hynix, Infineon, Samsung and Nanya). By trolling
with a few barbed comments, the Corsian always manages to hook the
masses and the discussion rapidly regresses to pointless name calling
and excessive use of the term "ad hominem".

Yep, that's timsullivan. Killfile the troll.

 

[nobody]

"John Corse" is more an *idea* than a man. It's the ideology of being
so completely certain of Rambus' righteousness and the power of RBMS
stock that they will defend and promote the company at all cost. They
take the support of a company far beyond being a simple "fanboy",
stretching it to the point of a religion. Attempting to have a
meaningful discussion with a Corsian about anything computer-related
will inevitably lead to tangential rants about the supreme greatness
that is RDRAM and the incontestable supremacy of Rambus' technology,
as well as vileness that stems from the evil pentaverate of memory
manufacturers (Micron, Hynix, Infineon, Samsung and Nanya). By
trolling with a few barbed comments, the Corsian always manages to
hook the masses and the discussion rapidly regresses to pointless name
calling and excessive use of the term "ad hominem".

...."defend and promote"? To me, it looks more like pump and dump.

NNN

 

[Del Cecchi]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:25:19 -0500, "Del Cecchi"



news:[email protected]...

Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn
I

SHAME ON YOU!!!

said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I
believe

I believe the relevant part of my post is (starting with your
statement....) ">>> Rambus will never find friends in the sector, if not
the entire

business
world again. It could find partners, but only from the very few
companies
which also have monopoly ambition, like IBM.

[to Ar Q]How about their err, partnership with AMD?;-)


I believe you are full of excrement as well as misguided about IBM and
Rambus."

which was not sufficiently clear apparently. Perhaps I should have put
parenthesis around (IBM and Rambus). You know nothing about the
relationship, yet you describe it at being "partners" due to IBM
allegedly having monopoly ambition and implying that IBM has no better
ethics than rambus.

At the very least this is jumping to conclusions on the basis of no data
about IBM's motives, intentions, or actions.

The real situation is, those who know, aren't talking. I had thought it
might be safe to finally fess up, but now I'm not so sure. On the good
side, I got rid of ALL of my Rambus materials YEARS ago, except the
RambusD technical manual, as a "design souvenier." It's now old enough
to be techically interesting, but no longer significant. Actually, the
design data may still be laying around on disk, somewhere. I never got
around to cleaning it out, and the design data in the toolset used for
that design was awfully dense, so the storage is a nit compared to
current designs.

I never knew much about the contract, and remember even less, but I know
a that a heck of a lot is erroneously presented here, as well as having
had friends sitting on the JEDEC committees during the whole timeframe.

Again, I thought this was water under the bridge, but apparently it
isn't, so now I'll shut up. You'll never get real facts, here or on
investment boards. We need an equivalent of Godwin's Law here.

DEP (sits 1 floor down from KRW)

The contract or whatever it was between IBM and Rambus was recent, and
there was a recent press release. That is what initially led to this
mess, I believe. But your point about erroneous stuff and that those
who know aren't talking is sure correct.

 

[Christy_z1]

hahahahahahahaha You sure are a smart one aren't you? Shows how
much you know about Rambus.

 

[Christy_z1]

You are so blinded by your hate, it is unbeliavable. Are you putting
your hopes on the MU RICO case ? Well guess what , it has already been
dismissed in Virginia. As far as Delaware, the special master has given
the recommendation , you might want to read it.

http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2006-03-06 Special Master Report & Recommendation re Fraud.pdf

And CAFC already decided that there is no fraud during the time Rambus
was in Jedec. So sorry george for dashing your hopes.

As far as the 30M, the court ordered it, Rambus did not do the raid, so
not much hope there either.

Do you know Horowitz founded Rambus? Just checking, you sound as
clueless as the other guy.

 

[George Macdonald]

"John Corse" is more an *idea* than a man. It's the ideology of being
so completely certain of Rambus' righteousness and the power of RBMS
stock that they will defend and promote the company at all cost. They
take the support of a company far beyond being a simple "fanboy",
stretching it to the point of a religion.

That was only the surface though. The bottom line is that JC did not give
a shit about Rambus' technology or its potential merits or flaws and amply
demonstrated here that he had no understanding of even the most mundane
facts about memory systems (I remember in one of *those* threads the
subject of SRAM came up and he insisted that Rambus was going to slaughter
SRAM<titter>). All he cared about was that it was a nice target stock for
selling higher than it cost him, in as short a period as possible - funny,
it still fits that bill on volatility.

Attempting to have a
meaningful discussion with a Corsian about anything computer-related
will inevitably lead to tangential rants about the supreme greatness
that is RDRAM and the incontestable supremacy of Rambus' technology,
as well as vileness that stems from the evil pentaverate of memory
manufacturers (Micron, Hynix, Infineon, Samsung and Nanya). By
trolling with a few barbed comments, the Corsian always manages to
hook the masses and the discussion rapidly regresses to pointless name
calling and excessive use of the term "ad hominem".

It can be hard though to leave some of the guff to just err, reek - one has
the thought that if left unchallenged it will be read as fact by some
passer by.

 

[George Macdonald]

How many 'nyms do you have, John?

Hmm, I think he made another blunder there - forgot to change his posting
ID from some other sleaze-scam the scumbag is working. That's what got him
caught and banned the last time - clever he ain't!

 

[George Macdonald]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:25:19 -0500, "Del Cecchi"

Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn
I SHAME ON YOU!!!
said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I
believe

I believe the relevant part of my post is (starting with your
statement....) ">>> Rambus will never find friends in the sector, if not
the entire

business
world again. It could find partners, but only from the very few
companies
which also have monopoly ambition, like IBM.

[to Ar Q]How about their err, partnership with AMD?;-)

I believe you are full of excrement as well as misguided about IBM and
Rambus."

which was not sufficiently clear apparently. Perhaps I should have put
parenthesis around (IBM and Rambus). You know nothing about the
relationship, yet you describe it at being "partners" due to IBM
allegedly having monopoly ambition and implying that IBM has no better
ethics than rambus.

At the very least this is jumping to conclusions on the basis of no data
about IBM's motives, intentions, or actions.

Hi Dale(?)

Please note that the above statements attributed to me are completely
erroneous - I never said any such thing. Del got his posting IDs confused
and apparently fired from the hip.

The real situation is, those who know, aren't talking. I had thought it
might be safe to finally fess up, but now I'm not so sure. On the good
side, I got rid of ALL of my Rambus materials YEARS ago, except the
RambusD technical manual, as a "design souvenier." It's now old enough
to be techically interesting, but no longer significant. Actually, the
design data may still be laying around on disk, somewhere. I never got
around to cleaning it out, and the design data in the toolset used for
that design was awfully dense, so the storage is a nit compared to
current designs.

I never knew much about the contract, and remember even less, but I know
a that a heck of a lot is erroneously presented here, as well as having
had friends sitting on the JEDEC committees during the whole timeframe.

Hmm, are you saying that there were JEDEC delegates who agreed with (all)?
RAMBUS' claims? IIRC there *was* someone from IBM who testified and seemed
firmly on the JEDEC side during the FTC anti-trust case - no?

Again, I thought this was water under the bridge, but apparently it
isn't, so now I'll shut up. You'll never get real facts, here or on
investment boards. We need an equivalent of Godwin's Law here.

As long as the submarines are allowed to err, stay, this will never be
over... and there seems little likelyhood that the USPTO is going to clean
it up.

 

[George Macdonald]

See http://www.rambus.com/about/executive/index.aspx

To quote:

Mark Horowitz, Ph.D., Chief Scientist

"Dr. Horowitz was named Rambus Chief Scientist in May 2005. Prior to
this appointment, he served as a director and also served as vice
president from 1990-1994 since co-founding Rambus in March 1990. As
Chief Scientist, Horowitz is responsible for assembling teams to
evaluate trends and look for opportunities to apply Rambus's high-speed
signaling expertise to various markets. Dr. Horowitz has taught at
Stanford University since 1984 where he is currently a professor of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He holds B.S. and M.S.
degrees in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
Stanford University."

Bottom line: he was not "the founder" but one of a group, including Geoff
Tate... a former employee of AMD, where he worked on things x86
apparently. The VCs, of course, always seem to try to keep a low
profile in such dealings.

 

[timsullivan2003]

Yes I did forget to change my ID. Of course you continue to argue the
person rather than the facts. Please point out any other blunders I
have made.

Banned from what George?

 

[timsullivan2003]

Yes I did forget to change my ID. Of course you continue to argue the
person rather than the facts. Please point out any other blunders I
have made.

Banned from what George?