N
Nate Edel
Christy_z1 said:
Picked up a bunch of Rambus shares, did you?
Picked up a bunch of Rambus shares, did you?
L
lyon_wonder
Even in Intel world, there was a PC133 alternative to RDRAM
That would be Intel's 810 that didn't have AGP. The 815 included a 4x
AGP slot, though only recognized a maximum of 512MB of SDRAM, whereas
the older 440BX could accept 1GB.
That would be Intel's 810 that didn't have AGP. The 815 included a 4x
AGP slot, though only recognized a maximum of 512MB of SDRAM, whereas
the older 440BX could accept 1GB.
N
nobody
I could've blurred memories of something that happend back then in
previous millenium. Besides, the P3 on any of these chipsets,
including the premium 2-channel RDRAM (840? can be mistaking again)
was soundly beaten by the first gen of K7 on Irongate chipset - this
one I remember clearly.
;-)
NNN
T
Tony Hill
DOJ documents or not, there was just NO way to make RDRAM as cheap as
DDR, the technology was quite a bit more complex and expensive. From
the timings on the chips to the packaging to the more expensive
testing equipment, requirement for heat spreaders, etc.
The only way that RDRAM could EVER reach price parity with DDR was if
the volume was much higher, and other than Rambus stock shills, pretty
much nobody wanted that. It was bad news for memory manufacturers and
it was bad news for consumers.
C
chrisv
lyon_wonder said:
Yep, my kid's machine is a PIII 1GHz with the 815 chipset, loaded-up
with 512M of PC133 and an ATI 9500 Pro in the AGP slot. Still does a
decent job on newer games like Sims 2. 8)
D
Del Cecchi
Ar Q said:
I believe you are full of excrement as well as misguided about IBM and
Rambus.
K
Keith
Geez, my Windows machine is a K6-III and did[*] a decent job of what we
needed windows for.
[*] still not clear what's broke. It runs, but not Windows.
A
arthur
What a bunch of horse shit. You would abolish patents, right?
Copyrights too? Trademaks? What else? Private property? Yeh lets
all go Communistic. Atta boy, great thinker.
I am bearish RMBS because it is still over priced. I am into my 2nd
round of bear Calls. Also, winning law suits and collecting are 2
different issues.
arthur
==
Copyrights too? Trademaks? What else? Private property? Yeh lets
all go Communistic. Atta boy, great thinker.
I am bearish RMBS because it is still over priced. I am into my 2nd
round of bear Calls. Also, winning law suits and collecting are 2
different issues.
arthur
==
C
chrisv
Keith said:
Heck, she recently came dangerously close to getting upgraded to my
current machine (a 3GHz Northwood). I caught her using my machine to
watch some online videos, and she claimed that her machine wasn't fast
enough. So, naturally, I reasoned that her dissatisfaction with her
machine, now 5 years old, gave me a good excuse to build that
dual-core AMD64 machine that I'd been dreaming about! 8) Spent a few
fun hours on NewEgg, choosing components (4200+)...
Imagine my disappointment when I started talking to her about the
prospect, and she told me that she was really quite satisfied with her
machine. I guess I can wait until Fall... 8(
K
Keith
Any videos (not a lot) get played on the Opteron system. The DVD
drives are on it anyway. They sit next to each other (and share
KVM) so each has its purpose.
My wife's been grousing because the K6-III has been down (and it
can't get up) so she can't play her Internet time-wasters (MSN sees
Linux and barfs, "for some reason"). I think today is "order the
new laptop day". That'll get her Internet games back. I haven't
figured out is which graphics card to go with it yet (requirements:
half-height PCI-E w/dual head).
G
George Macdonald
[to Ar Q]How about their err, partnership with AMD?;-)
Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn I
said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I believe
you're missing something about their business ethics and general corporate
behavior. Even the appeal court in the Infineon case, which ruled in
Rambus' favor, remarked on their (lack of) "business ethics".
You should also note that IBM's "relationship" with Rambus is *unique* in
that the terms of the agreement were not made public - not even a smidgeon
of a rumor, AFAIK, of the $$ involved, nor the method of application...
e.g. license fee (annual on-going or one-time) or component tax. We also
don't know what other "agreements" might have been made with IBM over the
years; IBM would certainly have been a target of their "IP" raids, though
it has been their habit to go after the minnows first.
Over the years they've talked about cleaning up their business model and
presenting as a better "citizen" and yet they just can't seem to help
themselves and turn around and sue everyone in sight. Their estimated
legal bill of $30M for this year, however, given how disproportionate it is
to their earnings, seems to give the lie to their intention to present a
better corporate image. There is evidence that they have considerable
technology talent & skills - it does seem to be far outweighed though by
the legal predators who live there. The chameleon just cannot resist
changes of color.
I'd be interested to know what you think of Jerome Lemelson. Here's an
interesting (summary) article
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1826712005 - rogue or
genius?... "science-fiction writer", inventor, or doodler? To me, same
"animal"... note:
'Mitsubishi, in a 1993 lawsuit, alleged: "When his applications are
questioned by the patent examiners, as they often are, Lemelson delays,
continues, retracts, supersedes, redrafts and churns the
applications."'.... and:
"He has become adept at fraudulently manipulating the ... patent
application process and the overworked or inexperienced patent examiners to
cause various patents to wrongfully issue to him."... and:
'Even Mr Lemelson's brother, Howard, a retired electrical engineer,
admitted this week: "A lot of the times the ideas that Jerry came up with
were impractical from a commercial point of view."'... and:
'.... after sitting federal judge, Phyllis Atkins, ruled against him.
"Lemelson's use of continuing applications has been abusive and he should
be barred from enforcing his asserted patent rights," the judge said.'...
and:
'"The purpose of the patent system isn't to sit there in the weeds and let
someone else go out and do all the work and sue them," said a former
patent-office commissioner.
"That's not the way the patent system is supposed to work."'
This is fascinating stuff and all too familiar to the RMBS (NTP, Qualcomm
?) observer.<shrug>
Finally there's http://www.lemelson.org/programs/lemelson_mit_awards.php.
What the hell does this all mean?
Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn I
said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I believe
you're missing something about their business ethics and general corporate
behavior. Even the appeal court in the Infineon case, which ruled in
Rambus' favor, remarked on their (lack of) "business ethics".
You should also note that IBM's "relationship" with Rambus is *unique* in
that the terms of the agreement were not made public - not even a smidgeon
of a rumor, AFAIK, of the $$ involved, nor the method of application...
e.g. license fee (annual on-going or one-time) or component tax. We also
don't know what other "agreements" might have been made with IBM over the
years; IBM would certainly have been a target of their "IP" raids, though
it has been their habit to go after the minnows first.
Over the years they've talked about cleaning up their business model and
presenting as a better "citizen" and yet they just can't seem to help
themselves and turn around and sue everyone in sight. Their estimated
legal bill of $30M for this year, however, given how disproportionate it is
to their earnings, seems to give the lie to their intention to present a
better corporate image. There is evidence that they have considerable
technology talent & skills - it does seem to be far outweighed though by
the legal predators who live there. The chameleon just cannot resist
changes of color.
I'd be interested to know what you think of Jerome Lemelson. Here's an
interesting (summary) article
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1826712005 - rogue or
genius?... "science-fiction writer", inventor, or doodler?
To me, same"animal"... note:
'Mitsubishi, in a 1993 lawsuit, alleged: "When his applications are
questioned by the patent examiners, as they often are, Lemelson delays,
continues, retracts, supersedes, redrafts and churns the
applications."'.... and:
"He has become adept at fraudulently manipulating the ... patent
application process and the overworked or inexperienced patent examiners to
cause various patents to wrongfully issue to him."... and:
'Even Mr Lemelson's brother, Howard, a retired electrical engineer,
admitted this week: "A lot of the times the ideas that Jerry came up with
were impractical from a commercial point of view."'... and:
'.... after sitting federal judge, Phyllis Atkins, ruled against him.
"Lemelson's use of continuing applications has been abusive and he should
be barred from enforcing his asserted patent rights," the judge said.'...
and:
'"The purpose of the patent system isn't to sit there in the weeds and let
someone else go out and do all the work and sue them," said a former
patent-office commissioner.
"That's not the way the patent system is supposed to work."'
This is fascinating stuff and all too familiar to the RMBS (NTP, Qualcomm
?) observer.<shrug>
Finally there's http://www.lemelson.org/programs/lemelson_mit_awards.php.
What the hell does this all mean?
D
Del Cecchi
George Macdonald said:[to Ar Q]How about their err, partnership with AMD?;-)
Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn
I
said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I
believe
you're missing something about their business ethics and general
corporate
behavior. Even the appeal court in the Infineon case, which ruled in
Rambus' favor, remarked on their (lack of) "business ethics".
You should also note that IBM's "relationship" with Rambus is *unique*
in
that the terms of the agreement were not made public - not even a
smidgeon
of a rumor, AFAIK, of the $$ involved, nor the method of application...
e.g. license fee (annual on-going or one-time) or component tax. We
also
don't know what other "agreements" might have been made with IBM over
the
years; IBM would certainly have been a target of their "IP" raids,
though
it has been their habit to go after the minnows first.
Over the years they've talked about cleaning up their business model
and
presenting as a better "citizen" and yet they just can't seem to help
themselves and turn around and sue everyone in sight. Their estimated
legal bill of $30M for this year, however, given how disproportionate
it is
to their earnings, seems to give the lie to their intention to present
a
better corporate image. There is evidence that they have considerable
technology talent & skills - it does seem to be far outweighed though
by
the legal predators who live there. The chameleon just cannot resist
changes of color.
I'd be interested to know what you think of Jerome Lemelson. Here's an
interesting (summary) article
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1826712005 - rogue or
genius?... "science-fiction writer", inventor, or doodler?
same
"animal"... note:
'Mitsubishi, in a 1993 lawsuit, alleged: "When his applications are
questioned by the patent examiners, as they often are, Lemelson delays,
continues, retracts, supersedes, redrafts and churns the
applications."'.... and:
"He has become adept at fraudulently manipulating the ... patent
application process and the overworked or inexperienced patent
examiners to
cause various patents to wrongfully issue to him."... and:
'Even Mr Lemelson's brother, Howard, a retired electrical engineer,
admitted this week: "A lot of the times the ideas that Jerry came up
with
were impractical from a commercial point of view."'... and:
'.... after sitting federal judge, Phyllis Atkins, ruled against him.
"Lemelson's use of continuing applications has been abusive and he
should
be barred from enforcing his asserted patent rights," the judge
said.'...
and:
'"The purpose of the patent system isn't to sit there in the weeds and
let
someone else go out and do all the work and sue them," said a former
patent-office commissioner.
"That's not the way the patent system is supposed to work."'
This is fascinating stuff and all too familiar to the RMBS (NTP,
Qualcomm
?) observer.<shrug>
Finally there's
http://www.lemelson.org/programs/lemelson_mit_awards.php.
What the hell does this all mean?
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
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.
So I repeat, you are full of shit.
Whether your negative opinions of Rambus are justified, you are still
full of shit. So go short Rambus or something to show your superiority.
And in the future, I wish you idiots would stop crossposting between
technical groups and investment groups.
del
D
David Kanter
which was not sufficiently clear apparently. Perhaps I should have put
Here here! I concur with Del on all counts.
DK
Here here! I concur with Del on all counts.
DK
G
George Macdonald
George Macdonald said:
[to Ar Q]How about their err, partnership with AMD?;-)
Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn
I
said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I
believe
you're missing something about their business ethics and general
corporate
behavior. Even the appeal court in the Infineon case, which ruled in
Rambus' favor, remarked on their (lack of) "business ethics".
You should also note that IBM's "relationship" with Rambus is *unique*
in
that the terms of the agreement were not made public - not even a
smidgeon
of a rumor, AFAIK, of the $$ involved, nor the method of application...
e.g. license fee (annual on-going or one-time) or component tax. We
also
don't know what other "agreements" might have been made with IBM over
the
years; IBM would certainly have been a target of their "IP" raids,
though
it has been their habit to go after the minnows first.
Over the years they've talked about cleaning up their business model
and
presenting as a better "citizen" and yet they just can't seem to help
themselves and turn around and sue everyone in sight. Their estimated
legal bill of $30M for this year, however, given how disproportionate
it is
to their earnings, seems to give the lie to their intention to present
a
better corporate image. There is evidence that they have considerable
technology talent & skills - it does seem to be far outweighed though
by
the legal predators who live there. The chameleon just cannot resist
changes of color.
I'd be interested to know what you think of Jerome Lemelson. Here's an
interesting (summary) article
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1826712005 - rogue or
genius?... "science-fiction writer", inventor, or doodler?
same
"animal"... note:
'Mitsubishi, in a 1993 lawsuit, alleged: "When his applications are
questioned by the patent examiners, as they often are, Lemelson delays,
continues, retracts, supersedes, redrafts and churns the
applications."'.... and:
"He has become adept at fraudulently manipulating the ... patent
application process and the overworked or inexperienced patent
examiners to
cause various patents to wrongfully issue to him."... and:
'Even Mr Lemelson's brother, Howard, a retired electrical engineer,
admitted this week: "A lot of the times the ideas that Jerry came up
with
were impractical from a commercial point of view."'... and:
'.... after sitting federal judge, Phyllis Atkins, ruled against him.
"Lemelson's use of continuing applications has been abusive and he
should
be barred from enforcing his asserted patent rights," the judge
said.'...
and:
'"The purpose of the patent system isn't to sit there in the weeds and
let
someone else go out and do all the work and sue them," said a former
patent-office commissioner.
"That's not the way the patent system is supposed to work."'
This is fascinating stuff and all too familiar to the RMBS (NTP,
Qualcomm
?) observer.<shrug>
Finally there's
http://www.lemelson.org/programs/lemelson_mit_awards.php.
What the hell does this all mean?
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
You are mistaken - not my post!
Put the gun back in the holster Hopalong.
Thank you!
Again not guilty - <sigh> I *do* wish you would pay attention.
Now about Jerome...............................
F
Felger Carbon
David Kanter said:
Uh, David, that's "Hear hear". Originated in the Brit parliament,
back in the days when folks communicated by sound waves and not by
faster means such as optical cable. ;-)
D
David Kanter
Felger said:
Duly noted.
DK
G
George Macdonald
D'oh - ya mean emm, hear, hear? 'Cept Del is completely off target... and
addressed his comments to the wrong person - hard to see how anyone who is
paying attention could agree with "all points" of a mis-aimed brain-fart.
D
Del Cecchi
George Macdonald said:
OK, here is the relevant part. I had replied to some doof, not you
and your post went
[to Ar Q]How about their err, partnership with AMD?;-)
(you said)
Why? Perhaps you'd have a different view if you'd met John Corse [damn I
said it!... sorry everybody but necessary here I think] and other
pseudonyms here. If you think that Rambus is not tainted goods I believe
you're missing something about their business ethics and general
corporate
behavior. Even the appeal court in the Infineon case, which ruled in
Rambus' favor, remarked on their (lack of) "business ethics".
You should also note that IBM's "relationship" with Rambus is *unique* in
that the terms of the agreement were not made public - not even a
smidgeon
of a rumor, AFAIK, of the $$ involved, nor the method of application...
e.g. license fee (annual on-going or one-time) or component tax. We also
don't know what other "agreements" might have been made with IBM over the
years; IBM would certainly have been a target of their "IP" raids, though
it has been their habit to go after the minnows first.
Over the years they've talked about cleaning up their business model and
presenting as a better "citizen" and yet they just can't seem to help
themselves and turn around and sue everyone in sight. Their estimated
legal bill of $30M for this year, however, given how disproportionate it
is
to their earnings, seems to give the lie to their intention to present a
better corporate image. There is evidence that they have considerable
technology talent & skills - it does seem to be far outweighed though by
the legal predators who live there. The chameleon just cannot resist
changes of color.
-------------------------------
I think my characterization of your position stands. You are tarring IBM
with your Rambus brush.
Sorry for confusing the bashers. You know absolutely nothing about the
relationship between IBM and Rambus. So commenting on it can only be
based on hot air.
followups trimmed.
del cecchi
B
boughtmore
Did'nt you guys hear? Rambus and RDRAM were sandbagged from day one.
Hynix, Micron and Samsung entered into an agreement to kill RDRAM, not
becasuse it was expensive, but because they didn't want to pay
royalties, and they didn't want Intel to dominate the DRAM business,
and turn them into foundries.
If you followed what happened at all, you'd know that Rambus invented
the synchronous memory, and all of the features that have made SDRAM,
DDR SDRAM and DDR2 as well as GDDR so much better and faster than the
old async memory.
Hynix, Infineon and Samsung have been slamming RDRAM as expensive for
years. Hell, they controlled the price and limited production. That's
why Micaael Dell took them to the DOJ, and that's why the DOJ found all
of them guilty of criminal collusion and price fixing.
If you like thieves, you should love Micron adn Hynix, and to some
degree Samsung. They'bve all been convicted.
If you want to read the full story of how they set out to kill Rambus
to avoid paying, wiat for a couple of weeks.
Key documents, email messages between Appleton froom Micron and COE
Park from Hynix and the Pres of Infineon, with special emails to all
from a guy named Fabrizi, who was the conspiracy to kill RDRAM and
Rambus will be released from the California Court were Rambus has all
of these guys in the dock for Anti-trust.
The Judge said Rambus could release the emails on May 16th. Joe
Cotchett, one of America's top anti trust attorneys who is representing
Rambus told the Court they are dynamite.
Get your facts straight: Rambus was the patsy in a plan by the dram
industry to steal IP and squash a small company wha had some big IP.
Hynix, Micron and Samsung entered into an agreement to kill RDRAM, not
becasuse it was expensive, but because they didn't want to pay
royalties, and they didn't want Intel to dominate the DRAM business,
and turn them into foundries.
If you followed what happened at all, you'd know that Rambus invented
the synchronous memory, and all of the features that have made SDRAM,
DDR SDRAM and DDR2 as well as GDDR so much better and faster than the
old async memory.
Hynix, Infineon and Samsung have been slamming RDRAM as expensive for
years. Hell, they controlled the price and limited production. That's
why Micaael Dell took them to the DOJ, and that's why the DOJ found all
of them guilty of criminal collusion and price fixing.
If you like thieves, you should love Micron adn Hynix, and to some
degree Samsung. They'bve all been convicted.
If you want to read the full story of how they set out to kill Rambus
to avoid paying, wiat for a couple of weeks.
Key documents, email messages between Appleton froom Micron and COE
Park from Hynix and the Pres of Infineon, with special emails to all
from a guy named Fabrizi, who was the conspiracy to kill RDRAM and
Rambus will be released from the California Court were Rambus has all
of these guys in the dock for Anti-trust.
The Judge said Rambus could release the emails on May 16th. Joe
Cotchett, one of America's top anti trust attorneys who is representing
Rambus told the Court they are dynamite.
Get your facts straight: Rambus was the patsy in a plan by the dram
industry to steal IP and squash a small company wha had some big IP.
B
boughtmore
DDR and DDR 2 infringe 19 claims and 10 patents belonging to
Rambus.Infineon had every decision made by they crook Judge Payne
reversed until the lst case, which rambus and Infineon settled with
infineon paying $50 to 150 million for a Rambus.
I always though techies from the semi industry were fact based and
logical. Check some facts before you spout propaganda promoted by IP
thieves like Hynix and Micron and their mouthpieces in the EE media.
It's not too late to save your intellectual integrity.
Rambus created the very DRAM features that make DDR as fast as it is.
That's why Rambus won the patent infringement case last week, after
Micron and Samsung sued Rambus (yes not the other way around) on
everything but patent infringement.
They are all patent thieves and they know it. That's why Infineon
Micron and Samsung have avoided a patent trial for so long. They stole
Rambus IP and put it first in SDRAM, then in DDR, and now in DDR2, GDDR
and DDR3. They dam near killed Rambus. The did kill RDRAM.
RDRAM didn't die because it was too expensive to build or too slow. It
died because the DRAM ramb guys decided to keep RDRAM prices up while
the cherry picked the creative inventions that made RDRAM work and put
them in JEDEC" standards, and then claims Rambus "stole' the inventions
from Jedec.
Very clever. But as the Court, and even the Jury noticed, all the key
inventions for DDR that make it fast are found in the original Rambus
patent.
Rambus.Infineon had every decision made by they crook Judge Payne
reversed until the lst case, which rambus and Infineon settled with
infineon paying $50 to 150 million for a Rambus.
I always though techies from the semi industry were fact based and
logical. Check some facts before you spout propaganda promoted by IP
thieves like Hynix and Micron and their mouthpieces in the EE media.
It's not too late to save your intellectual integrity.
Rambus created the very DRAM features that make DDR as fast as it is.
That's why Rambus won the patent infringement case last week, after
Micron and Samsung sued Rambus (yes not the other way around) on
everything but patent infringement.
They are all patent thieves and they know it. That's why Infineon
Micron and Samsung have avoided a patent trial for so long. They stole
Rambus IP and put it first in SDRAM, then in DDR, and now in DDR2, GDDR
and DDR3. They dam near killed Rambus. The did kill RDRAM.
RDRAM didn't die because it was too expensive to build or too slow. It
died because the DRAM ramb guys decided to keep RDRAM prices up while
the cherry picked the creative inventions that made RDRAM work and put
them in JEDEC" standards, and then claims Rambus "stole' the inventions
from Jedec.
Very clever. But as the Court, and even the Jury noticed, all the key
inventions for DDR that make it fast are found in the original Rambus
patent.