D
daytripper
I for one have zero problem with pure IP companies - as long as they're
selling THEIR OWN IP.
/daytripper (Yeah, it really is as simple as that...)
I for one have zero problem with pure IP companies - as long as they're
selling THEIR OWN IP.
/daytripper (Yeah, it really is as simple as that...)
D
daytripper
True - there's no shortage of shills on Usenet.
But if you're gonna start posting things others can agree with, you may lose
your troll status here...
/daytripper (hth ;-)
S
Stacey
daytripper said:
-Exactly-!!!!
S
Stacey
Tim said:
Trying to pump that stock back up? Or have you already dumped it the day
before this was "news", bought it back 2 days later and are trying to pump
it back up?
Didn't see the words "Stock pumping" in the name of the newsgroup.
T
Tim Sullivan
Stacey said:
NON SEQUITUR
Pronunciation: nân 'sekwitur
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises
[n] a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it
See Also: conclusion, reply, response
T
Tim Sullivan
Stacey said:
You seem to have extremely limited reading comprehension. Please quote
one example where I was "pumping" Rambus from my post:
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.
T
Tim Sullivan
daytripper said:
Can you explain to me how Rambus is selling someone elses IP? You know
the USPTO doesn't allow you to patent other peoples inventions, right?
You do know what the "doctrine of equivalents" is?
G
George Macdonald
That's fine and dandy *IFF* they actually have something original and ask a
reasonable price... though it *does* raise the question of how much they
should pay all the other patent holders which they want to piggy-back their
"idea" on. Certainly, a bunch of shysters trying to hold up an entire
world-wide industry for ransom does not qualify.
The company I work for does not have "options". Maybe you're thinking of
M$.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
S
Stacey
Tim said:
You said you own their stock, so how does this apply? You obviously have
something to gain by "pumping" rambus stock if for no other reason you
NEVER post on any subject other than rambus.
S
Stacey
Tim said:
Are you this stupid? The below is "damage control" if I've ever seen it.
You're obviously afraid other people will see this EPO action as a
reflection of what the FTC will decide and you need to control this so your
rambus stock doesn't tank before you can dump it, if you haven't already,
rebought and are trying to pump it back up..
J
jack
<snip>
: Tim Sullivan wrote:
:
:: ::
:: WordNet Dictionary
::
:: Definition: [n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from
:: the premises
:
:
: You said you own their stock, so how does this apply? You obviously
: have something to gain by "pumping" rambus stock if for no other
: reason you NEVER post on any subject other than rambus.
Don't you know, Stacey, this is just another John Corse alias. Even if
this lamer isn't Corse, you can bet he's the favorite pivot man in the
RMBS-Corse-Sullivan circle jerking pump-a-thon. This dude is SUCH an
idiot! LOL!
J.
--
: Tim Sullivan wrote:
:
:: ::
:: WordNet Dictionary
::
:: Definition: [n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from
:: the premises
:
:
: You said you own their stock, so how does this apply? You obviously
: have something to gain by "pumping" rambus stock if for no other
: reason you NEVER post on any subject other than rambus.
Don't you know, Stacey, this is just another John Corse alias. Even if
this lamer isn't Corse, you can bet he's the favorite pivot man in the
RMBS-Corse-Sullivan circle jerking pump-a-thon. This dude is SUCH an
idiot! LOL!
J.
--
M
Mike Tomlinson
Stacey said:
Alright, who's get the c.s.i.p.h.c screen cleaner?
D
daytripper
Puhleaze, if you ever had a clue about patent strategies you'd know just about
any well documented application that doesn't set off alarm bells will - given
the required financial support throughout the process - gain a patent.
The real proof of a patent is how the claims are defended at trial.
And so far Rambust's track record on that score is pretty bad.
As for our illustrious patent office: If the USPTO had been driving the
covered wagons, the West would still be undiscovered...
/daytripper (hth ;-)
R
Robert Myers
Aww, geez. Another Rambus thread. You're right about a patent not
meaning much until it's been tested in the courts, but Mr. Sullivan
just uttered the scariest of phrases in patent law: "the doctrine of
equivalents."
I'm not going to do a groklaw-type thing and try to explain the
doctrine of equivalents, but, in my limited experience, the doctrine
of equivalents can make a patent, if it is enforceable at all, pretty
sweeping in its effects. I've seen it at work, and the results were
not pretty.
This whole thing sounds like a complete crap shoot to me. No offense
to anyone involved in the discussion who has a settled opinion on the
matter, but this whole thing reminds me of a British saying: "Before
the court, you are in God's hands;" that is, anything can happen.
The whole patent system depends on being able to draw clearly-defined
boundaries between inventions. Even were such a thing possible in
concept, and I don't think it is, the doctrine of equivalents pretty
much guarantees that you can take the most vaguely-related but
enforceable patent and argue that it applies to someone else's IP.
You may or may not prevail, but the doctrine of equivalents guarantees
a muddy outcome and lengthy and costly proceedings. The big winners
are the lawyers, as usual.
My personal opinion is that the whole damn patent system is broken but
that we'll never see any change because as it stands it guarantees a
transfer of wealth from productive citizens (engineeers) to a predator
class (lawyers).
RM
T
Tony Hill
I'm happy about this decision because it was the RIGHT decision. That
patent never should have been granted in the first place! I don't
care whether it was Rambus that had it, or Micron, or Microsoft, or
whoever! It was an overly broad patent that covered a lot of
pre-existing technology.
If patent officers had more than ~20 hours total to do all their
research into a patent it probably would not have been granted at all.
However the USPTO and most other patent offices around the world are
totally understaffed and underqualified, so often these sorts of
patents squeeze through the cracks (cracks which are starting to look
more and more like gaping holes).
J
jack
<snip>
: As for our illustrious patent office: If the USPTO had been driving
: the
: covered wagons, the West would still be undiscovered...
Oh Daytrip, that is toooooo funny. Can I use that quote sometime in
another Usenet NG? Ooof!
J.
: As for our illustrious patent office: If the USPTO had been driving
: the
: covered wagons, the West would still be undiscovered...
Oh Daytrip, that is toooooo funny. Can I use that quote sometime in
another Usenet NG? Ooof!
J.
J
jack
<big snip>
: My personal opinion is that the whole damn patent system is broken but
: that we'll never see any change because as it stands it guarantees a
: transfer of wealth from productive citizens (engineeers) to a predator
: class (lawyers).
Wow, what a night! First Daytrip, and now Robert Myers with
"one-liners" you just gotta love! Hey Robert, can I use **this** remark
as well in another (not to be named) NG? Of course, I will credit the
author!
J.
-
: My personal opinion is that the whole damn patent system is broken but
: that we'll never see any change because as it stands it guarantees a
: transfer of wealth from productive citizens (engineeers) to a predator
: class (lawyers).
Wow, what a night! First Daytrip, and now Robert Myers with
"one-liners" you just gotta love! Hey Robert, can I use **this** remark
as well in another (not to be named) NG? Of course, I will credit the
author!
J.
-
T
Tim Sullivan
Stacey said:
I did damage control by saying this decision is bad? You are so
ignorant that you don't even know the EPO trial and FTC trial are
dealing with completely different issues with no overlap. I am buy and
hold, and even if I was trying to "pump and dump" this would be the
last place I would come. I am just trying to add some balance and
facts to counter the ignorant anti-Rambus shills who semm to have a
vested interest through their employers.
R
Robert Myers
It's a public posting. Feel free.
RM
J
Jan Panteltje
From a personal point of view, I think if you invest in that stuff, you
sort of support it, but of cause business is business.
Ethics are a different thing.
But this patent is so much prior art (Philips i2c I first used in the 80ties)
that it sort of makes you think they got some high school kid and
bought the idea from him / her.
If the rest of the stuff is the same quality, then they should be arrested for
obstruction of technology advancement if not anything else.
I ain't saying I would not buy puts on it to get rich...
But until now I have not.
Why the patent was given to them I absolutely do not understand.
No qualified people, man maybe we need something different for all this
patent stuff, although computer searches should make it easier for a patent
office to find prior art.
Jan