Rambus patent rejected by European Patent Office, stock plummets!

[rms]

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

rms

 

[Tony Hill]

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.

 

[George Macdonald]

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??

 

[Tim Sullivan]

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.

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.

 

[jack]

: 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.

 

[Tim Sullivan]

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?

 

[chrisv]

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?

 

[Tony Hill]

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/bnsviewer?CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=EP0525068&ID=WO+++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-...,598,171.WKU.&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.
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>

 

[Tim Sullivan]

: 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:

 

[Jan Panteltje]

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

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


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/bnsviewer?CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=EP0525068&ID=WO+++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-...html/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=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.

 

[Neil Maxwell]

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

Heh! That's damn funny. Tony's the most balanced and factual poster
in this whole nutty group, by a long shot.

Is this really Corse, risen from the dead, dead, dead? Now's the time
to stock up on the stock, while it's low!



Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

 

[Tim Sullivan]

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

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

Oh look a Rambus story appears and Tony Hill spews idiotic statements.
A law firm could develop technology such as RDRAM, XDR, and othe high
speed chip to chip communication? I don't think so.
The FTC "throwing out"/declaring a patent invalid? I don't think so.
Maybe you should educate yourself a little before you start the
anti-Rambus circle jerk.

 

[Tim Sullivan]

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


Poor JC. Did you get caught long on Rambust?

Frued would have some interesting things to say about yours and jacks
obsession with this John Corse character. You sound like you really
miss him and there are all sorts of repressed desires happening.
Also, please think of some new material for the future, your rants are
getting old and boring.

 

[George Macdonald]

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.

Uhh, speculate and rumor is part of your pump-pump-pump half-cycle;

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.

It's just politics my son! My bet: the other 3 patents are toast as well.

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

Yup - 3 mangey, wobbly little "ideas". In your pumping activities, I think
you'd better take into account that even if the court favors them, they're
worth a helluva lot less in royalty payments than 50. Even the suckers are
going to be able to figure that one out.

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?

You can work within and industry or you can work outside it and then attach
as a parasite. People hate parasites.... the very thought makes us cringe.

Inustrial parasites are, of course, easily recognized by the legal make-up
of senior mangement and BoD.

Rgds, George Macdonald

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

 

[daytripper]

Frued would have some interesting things to say about yours and jacks
obsession with this John Corse character. You sound like you really
miss him and there are all sorts of repressed desires happening.
Also, please think of some new material for the future, your rants are
getting old and boring.

[..../]

Irony meter

 

[Stacey]

Tim Sullivan wrote:

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

And you never miss a chance to plug rambus.

 

[Stacey]

Oh look a Rambus story appears and Tony Hill spews idiotic statements.
A law firm could develop technology such as RDRAM, XDR, and othe high
speed chip to chip communication?

Seems some lawyers claimed to have developed linux..

 

[Stacey]

George Macdonald wrote:

You can work within and industry or you can work outside it and then
attach
as a parasite. People hate parasites.... the very thought makes us
cringe.

Actually looks more like a pump and dump scheme to me, hence his "pumping"
the stock with these rumors. Looks like maybe he got "dumped" and is trying
to do some damage control to his portfolio?

 

[Tim Sullivan]

You can work within and industry or you can work outside it and then attach
as a parasite. People hate parasites.... the very thought makes us cringe.

Inustrial parasites are, of course, easily recognized by the legal make-up
of senior mangement and BoD.

Rgds, George Macdonald

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

Nice dodge. Still didn't answer the point about pure IP companies
providing necessary competition in oligopolistic industries.

And if you want to talk about parasites you should take a good hard
look yourselves and the companies that you guys work for and the
expensing of options. This is one of the greatest scams going and
hopefully the FASB will put an end to it this year.

 

[Tim Sullivan]

Heh! That's damn funny. Tony's the most balanced and factual poster
in this whole nutty group, by a long shot.

"Of course, this is only one of the MANY patents held by the law firm
of Rambus, Scambus and Shambus." (Tony Hill)

Yeah, real balanced there.

"Even if this patent is thrown out by the
FTC (which it should be if there's anyone halfway intelligent working
the case)"(Tony Hill)

You have a strange veiw of what is factual. The FTC has never had the
power to throw out patents like the EPO. This power rests with the
federal courts in the US.
Also notice that if someone has a different opinion to Tony they must
be unintelligent. Again doesn't sound very balanced to me.

Is this really Corse, risen from the dead, dead, dead? Now's the time
to stock up on the stock, while it's low!



Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

No I am not John Corse. You know, there can be more than 1 person who
owns Rambus stock and posts here.