Friday, October 29, 2021 9:00:02 PM
I have no problem with you trying to learn. I think it's great, in fact.
I apologize if I gave any other impression.
IP is intellectual property. The microprocessors NetList developed were patented and those patents are IP. Everyone out there making product that uses the specs in the patents belonging to NetList owes them money for licensing. SKHynix, Macron, Samsung, Inphi, all those companies,and more, which supply a huge amount of the world's microprocessors, have used NetList patents without paying a licensing fee. I think you will be very surprised when you get a firm grasp of the scale of the situation.
It took ten years for NetList to get their patents validated by the US Patent and Trademark office. That's a very long time in the computer industry. During that time period those patents were used by companies to manufacture and develop an awful lot of different microprocessors. Everyone thought NetList would go out of business and the patents would become public domain, meaning there would be no consequences. Well, they did not go out of business and now there is hell to pay.
When someone bases an invention on the foundation of something, that has been patented before, then they infringe on the first patent unless they obtain a license or permission or unless the patent is public domain. "New and improved" still owes its invention to the first incarnation. So even though a microprocessor may have been developed by another company, if they used the principles in the NetList patents then they owe NetList a fee. Even though the name and version may be different on a microprocessor, its "parentage", so to speak, is likely NetList. That is what they stole and used freely for ten years.Remember Qualcomm and their cellular patents? This is the equivalent. NetList technology, having been freely used for a decade, is now so ingrained throughout the industry that most, high speed, server memory products have NetList in their family tree.
Fun fact: Servers do not have interchangeable microprocessors or modules. A Samsung server, for example, cannot use a chip from Intel. Upgrading using anything else but components built by Samsung isn't possible. I was really surprised to learn this.
Take a look at http://googlecheatednetlist.com/ Though it hasn't been updated in a while it's a good site and there are some articles noted at the bottom that are fairly comprehensive.
I hope this helps. I'm not a computer industry insider so if there are any mistakes in this explanation please forgive me.
I apologize if I gave any other impression.
IP is intellectual property. The microprocessors NetList developed were patented and those patents are IP. Everyone out there making product that uses the specs in the patents belonging to NetList owes them money for licensing. SKHynix, Macron, Samsung, Inphi, all those companies,and more, which supply a huge amount of the world's microprocessors, have used NetList patents without paying a licensing fee. I think you will be very surprised when you get a firm grasp of the scale of the situation.
It took ten years for NetList to get their patents validated by the US Patent and Trademark office. That's a very long time in the computer industry. During that time period those patents were used by companies to manufacture and develop an awful lot of different microprocessors. Everyone thought NetList would go out of business and the patents would become public domain, meaning there would be no consequences. Well, they did not go out of business and now there is hell to pay.
When someone bases an invention on the foundation of something, that has been patented before, then they infringe on the first patent unless they obtain a license or permission or unless the patent is public domain. "New and improved" still owes its invention to the first incarnation. So even though a microprocessor may have been developed by another company, if they used the principles in the NetList patents then they owe NetList a fee. Even though the name and version may be different on a microprocessor, its "parentage", so to speak, is likely NetList. That is what they stole and used freely for ten years.Remember Qualcomm and their cellular patents? This is the equivalent. NetList technology, having been freely used for a decade, is now so ingrained throughout the industry that most, high speed, server memory products have NetList in their family tree.
Fun fact: Servers do not have interchangeable microprocessors or modules. A Samsung server, for example, cannot use a chip from Intel. Upgrading using anything else but components built by Samsung isn't possible. I was really surprised to learn this.
Take a look at http://googlecheatednetlist.com/ Though it hasn't been updated in a while it's a good site and there are some articles noted at the bottom that are fairly comprehensive.
I hope this helps. I'm not a computer industry insider so if there are any mistakes in this explanation please forgive me.
Recent NLST News
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/23/2026 03:21:32 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/22/2026 05:27:52 PM
- Form S-8 POS - Securities to be offered to employees in employee benefit plans, post-effective amendments • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/08/2026 09:01:52 PM
- Form S-8 POS - Securities to be offered to employees in employee benefit plans, post-effective amendments • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/08/2026 09:01:30 PM
- Form S-8 - Securities to be offered to employees in employee benefit plans • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/08/2026 09:00:37 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/27/2026 01:00:13 AM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/25/2026 07:40:56 PM
- Form 10-K - Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/19/2026 09:00:29 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/17/2026 12:44:23 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/16/2026 11:42:09 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/16/2026 07:01:33 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/16/2026 05:57:00 PM
- Netlist Urges Strong USTR Action in Section 301 Investigation Into South Korea Over Semiconductor IP Abuse • ACCESS Newswire • 03/13/2026 11:45:00 AM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/12/2026 08:03:14 PM
- Netlist to Attend 38th Annual Roth Conference • ACCESS Newswire • 03/11/2026 08:15:00 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/09/2026 10:07:50 AM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/03/2026 12:00:36 PM
- Netlist Reports Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2025 Results • ACCESS Newswire • 03/03/2026 12:00:00 PM
- Netlist Schedules Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Financial Results and Conference Call • ACCESS Newswire • 02/24/2026 09:15:00 PM
- The Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling Upholding Validity of Netlist '314 Patent • ACCESS Newswire • 02/23/2026 01:00:00 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/06/2026 02:30:09 AM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/05/2026 11:41:46 PM
- U.S. International Trade Commission Votes to Institute Investigation into Samsung • ACCESS Newswire • 12/30/2025 01:00:00 PM
- The Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling Upholding Validity of Netlist '608 Patent • ACCESS Newswire • 12/11/2025 01:00:00 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 12/02/2025 02:33:29 AM
