D
David Kanter
You are just as bad as George, and you spell worse.
DK
DK
G
George Macdonald
Oh come on get real - this guy is an anonymous troll who has no facts at
all. How dare you compare me with just another pump 'n' dumper.
G
George Macdonald
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 did NOT TAR IBM WITH ANY "BRUSH" and your "characterization" can hardly
"stand" when it was targeted at someone else's "position" in the first
place... someone you wanted to attack for cross-posting. I merely
commented on the lack of detailed info which could *possibly* indicate that
IBM has a different relationship with Rambus... one with apparently enough
clout to suppress public release of details of licensing terms.
I believe that I am allowed to comment as I wish and based on the evidence
- or in this case lack of it when compared with other license agreements.
I do not see where I bashed IBM though I *will* continue to take Rambus to
task for their ethical turpitude as I wish.
I do wish you'd read the Lemelson article, which illustrates unscrupulous
tactics which compare well, in many details, with the strategy of RMBS' IP
business model.
D
David Kanter
George said:Oh come on get real - this guy is an anonymous troll who has no facts at
all. How dare you compare me with just another pump 'n' dumper.
As an aside, do you really think anyone posts crap to investment boards
or to usenet with the intent to manipulate stock prices?
ISTM that there is no way that any large companies stock prices could
be influenced, since they are largely held by institutional investors.
DK
T
timsullivan2003
This guy has a few facts right and a few wrong. I look forward to you
explaining away some very incriminating and damaging documents that are
going to come out soon (May 16 but likely delayed due to appeals) in
the anti-trust case against Micron, Hynix and Samsung.
Heres another fact for you. Did you know Hynix and Micron met with
their lawyers in South Korea immediately before filing simultaneous
lawsuits against Rambus in 2000 (yes Rambus is the defendent in many of
these lawsuits) . These lawsuits were filed on opposites sides of the
country with the intention to stretch the resources of a small company
beyond breaking point. What do you expect Rambus to do but defend
itself in expensive litigation?
Can you also explain to me how you claim Rambus is unethical yet you
defend the companies, especially your favourite Micron, that are
convicted of price fixing and many executives have gone to jail? Still
standing by the claim that they were innocent but it was easier to just
plead guilty and not fight the DOJ?
explaining away some very incriminating and damaging documents that are
going to come out soon (May 16 but likely delayed due to appeals) in
the anti-trust case against Micron, Hynix and Samsung.
Heres another fact for you. Did you know Hynix and Micron met with
their lawyers in South Korea immediately before filing simultaneous
lawsuits against Rambus in 2000 (yes Rambus is the defendent in many of
these lawsuits) . These lawsuits were filed on opposites sides of the
country with the intention to stretch the resources of a small company
beyond breaking point. What do you expect Rambus to do but defend
itself in expensive litigation?
Can you also explain to me how you claim Rambus is unethical yet you
defend the companies, especially your favourite Micron, that are
convicted of price fixing and many executives have gone to jail? Still
standing by the claim that they were innocent but it was easier to just
plead guilty and not fight the DOJ?
G
George Macdonald
Of course they do - it's an established fact... especially with a volatile
stock like RMBS. Where have you been hiding? Have you never checked the
charts for RMBS? It varies from sawtoothed to square-waved.
Pump 'n' dump is an acknowledged fact.
And day-traders never existed?... and never made (and lost) millions of $$
over a few weeks (days even) and are not still dreaming of a return the the
err, halcyon days... and many chump small investors were never bilked out
of their retirement accounts?<shrug>
And John Corse (+ other pseudnyms) never existed?... and didn't flit around
various "boards" and this NG posting inflammatory, (hopefully for him)
price-pumping garbage. It's all in the record - go look!
As for institutional, they know the power they have and they use it.
D
David Kanter
As an aside, do you really think anyone posts crap to investment boards
So the stock is volatile, big deal. That has nothing to do with what I
was getting at.
I want to know if things posted to investment boards cause the price of
a stock to vary. Perhaps it is not investment boards, but hedge funds,
who have the option of all sorts of stuff, trading on news.
You have simply noted that the variance is high, not that there is
correlation, and certainly not that there is causality.
The amount of individual money in the market is less than a third of
the total:
In 2005 it was 66% http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp20050411.htm
So tell me, how much influence can that 1/3 of the market have?
Yes, and I think it's a waste of time and unable to effect the market.
Say what you mean please, I'm far too simple to understand the cloak
and daggers you are alluding to.
DK
So the stock is volatile, big deal. That has nothing to do with what I
was getting at.
I want to know if things posted to investment boards cause the price of
a stock to vary. Perhaps it is not investment boards, but hedge funds,
who have the option of all sorts of stuff, trading on news.
You have simply noted that the variance is high, not that there is
correlation, and certainly not that there is causality.
The amount of individual money in the market is less than a third of
the total:
In 2005 it was 66% http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp20050411.htm
So tell me, how much influence can that 1/3 of the market have?
Yes, and I think it's a waste of time and unable to effect the market.
Say what you mean please, I'm far too simple to understand the cloak
and daggers you are alluding to.
DK
R
Robert Redelmeier
David Kanter said:
IMHO, not much directly. They're mostly preaching to the
converted. Newspapers and magazines have a bigger influence
because they're read by the undecideds. Boards have an effect
because print journalists may [mis]read them as sources.
AFAIK, hedge funds aren't so "one-off". They trade
mispriced securities, and count on reversion to the mean.
Quite a bit, depending on where and how.
I think he alluding to institutions buying large amounts and
moving the market upwards. They certainly can. But the problem
is exiting. They can also move the market down when they try
to unload. There are tactics, but usually it's easier to buy
than to sell.
-- Robert
C
chrisv
Hey, John, how goes it? What a surprise that you're back again
posting with your "timsullivan" pseudonym.
How about this, John? Two wrongs don't make a right. Rambus is a
bunch of evil scumbags no matter what. I'll add that, IF indeed the
memory makers conspired to kill DRDRAM, well, I personally can forgive
them for that. Jolly good show, in fact.
C
chrisv
Before or during their membership in the JEDEC committee that was
developing the future standards, John?
T
timsullivan2003
You think everyone is John Corse? Beside the point you need to look up
the definition of "ad hominem" I think you need to see a psychiatrist
for paranoid delusions.
You do know Rambus left JEDEC before the DDR standard was even being
developed? Even Judge Payne, who ruled against Rambus on almost
everything, ruled that Rambus alleged behaviour at JEDEC had no effect
on the DDR standard.
As for evidence of what has been said about the memory makers cherry
picking Rambus IP check out http://rambus.org/cc/HynixJuryVerdictCC.pdf
Notice the footnotes to proposed DLL and dual edge clocking (which were
the main technology improvements over the previous generation of DRAM )
in a 1996 Hynix specification which says "Refer ro Rambus RDRAM"
Also notice the Infineon memo from 1994 "One day all computers wll have
to be built like this but hopefully without royalties going to Rambus".
Cheers
Tim Sullivan
PS Don't forget to look up the definition of "ad hominem"
the definition of "ad hominem" I think you need to see a psychiatrist
for paranoid delusions.
You do know Rambus left JEDEC before the DDR standard was even being
developed? Even Judge Payne, who ruled against Rambus on almost
everything, ruled that Rambus alleged behaviour at JEDEC had no effect
on the DDR standard.
As for evidence of what has been said about the memory makers cherry
picking Rambus IP check out http://rambus.org/cc/HynixJuryVerdictCC.pdf
Notice the footnotes to proposed DLL and dual edge clocking (which were
the main technology improvements over the previous generation of DRAM )
in a 1996 Hynix specification which says "Refer ro Rambus RDRAM"
Also notice the Infineon memo from 1994 "One day all computers wll have
to be built like this but hopefully without royalties going to Rambus".
Cheers
Tim Sullivan
PS Don't forget to look up the definition of "ad hominem"
A
Ar Q
How about this, John? Two wrongs don't make a right. Rambus is a
It is a miserable three or four years when RDRAM dominated the memory market
for Pentium 4 in late 90's. I don't blame the DRAM manufactures conspired to
kill RDRAM if they did. In the near end, they as well as consumers just
couldn't take it any more. To circumambulate the patents mines, they did a
great job to design an alternative product in less than two years. Even DDR
is not as powerful as RDRAM, marketing it is so easy since everybody hated
RAMBUS by then. Don't think consumers or DRAM manufactures will forgive or
forget. RAMBUS could only win in California when they have home court
advantage. Outside California, they have no chance to win any patent war.
Every IEEE engineer hates RAMBUS. Only scumbags amateurs work for this
company.
It is a miserable three or four years when RDRAM dominated the memory market
for Pentium 4 in late 90's. I don't blame the DRAM manufactures conspired to
kill RDRAM if they did. In the near end, they as well as consumers just
couldn't take it any more. To circumambulate the patents mines, they did a
great job to design an alternative product in less than two years. Even DDR
is not as powerful as RDRAM, marketing it is so easy since everybody hated
RAMBUS by then. Don't think consumers or DRAM manufactures will forgive or
forget. RAMBUS could only win in California when they have home court
advantage. Outside California, they have no chance to win any patent war.
Every IEEE engineer hates RAMBUS. Only scumbags amateurs work for this
company.
D
David Kanter
It is a miserable three or four years when RDRAM dominated the memory market
I'm not sure you realized this, but IEEE just voted Mark Horowitz, the
founder and chief scientist of Rambus, received the Donald O. Pederson
Award in Solid-State Circuits.
That seems to contradict what you're saying. Perhaps even, IEEE
members like Rambus...hrmmm...
DK
I'm not sure you realized this, but IEEE just voted Mark Horowitz, the
founder and chief scientist of Rambus, received the Donald O. Pederson
Award in Solid-State Circuits.
That seems to contradict what you're saying. Perhaps even, IEEE
members like Rambus...hrmmm...
DK
G
George Macdonald
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!
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.
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.
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.
A
Ar Q
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.
T
timsullivan2003
You just lost all credibility with this ignorant post. If you don't
even know the fact that Dr Horowitz founded Rambus with Dr. Michael
Farmwald you should refrain from commenting on more complex matters
that require far more knowledge; for example Rambus' alleged behaviour
at JEDEC and the illegal cartel behaviour of Micron, Infineon, Hynix
and Samsung to drive Rambus out of business.
even know the fact that Dr Horowitz founded Rambus with Dr. Michael
Farmwald you should refrain from commenting on more complex matters
that require far more knowledge; for example Rambus' alleged behaviour
at JEDEC and the illegal cartel behaviour of Micron, Infineon, Hynix
and Samsung to drive Rambus out of business.
C
chrisv
(e-mail address removed) (John Corse) wrote:
(top posting corrected)
I'm not sure about "boughtmore", but I'm pretty sure about you, John.
On what basis do you claim that calling you by your old pseudonym is a
ad hominem, John?
Sure, John.
So your answer is "before", John?
I will, John, if you look up the definitions of "top-posting idiot"
and "troll". 8)
(top posting corrected)
I'm not sure about "boughtmore", but I'm pretty sure about you, John.
On what basis do you claim that calling you by your old pseudonym is a
ad hominem, John?
Sure, John.
So your answer is "before", John?
I will, John, if you look up the definitions of "top-posting idiot"
and "troll". 8)
R
Robert Redelmeier
chrisv said:
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.
-- Robert in Houston
A
admin
Thanks for proving my point by arguing the person rather than the
facts. I see you conveniently ignored the evidence I posted.
facts. I see you conveniently ignored the evidence I posted.
T
timsullivan2003
Thanks for proving my point by debating the person not the facts. I see
you conveniently negleted to address the PDF file I posted.
you conveniently negleted to address the PDF file I posted.