Rambus (RMBS)

[calbiker]

Well Just, you proved Nic right again. Congratulations! Here’s what he said:

“I think you are wasting time here using facts and logic. If it doesn't come from the Rambus playbook or official dogma, it is pretty much Chinese to many.”

As it turn out, he’s correct. I feel like I’m wasting my time using facts and logic with you. All you managed to do is reply with gibberish, or completely ignore what I’ve said, or just change the topic of discussion. Ha.

Please tell me it ain’t so. Is this the best Yahoo cheerleader we can get? Let’s break down your woefully inept replies.

1. Your stating the topic ‘winning one claim only’ is FUD.

You reply:
My point was it was your opinion that your position was not FUD, nor is my position. They are both opinions. One is no more FUD than the other.

Your response is plain gibberish. It’s nonsense! The intelligent investor will want to know what will happen if Rambus wins the Hynix trial with just one claim. The topic is not FUD. Rambus will get nowhere near a 5% royalty rate if that happens. It will probably be closer to 1%.

2. Re. I do find you and nic seem to have the same playbook of "Rambus' patents aren't worth X".

One of the many deficiencies cheerleaders have is that they can’t read straight. They read what they want to hear. Nothing else. Nic’s and cal’s opinion on fair royalty rates don’t jive at all. Your (and other cheerleaders residing here) attempt at cal’s character assassination isn’t going to work. Only by making a honest assessment of the pros and cons of rmbs can one make an intelligent decision whether to buy sell or hold. You, my dear friend got your head stuck deep in sand, leaving your ass extremely vulnerable. That’s not the position cal wants to be in, nor does any intelligent investor.

I had used the logic that if Rambus thought 3.5% royalty was fair for the 6 inventions contained in DDR, and if the court finds only one invention valid then it could be argued that one invention is worth <1%.

Let’s take your data and your approach. You state each invention is worth 2 to 5%. This means Hynix has a 2 to 5% savings in this one claim win scenario. The law states Rambus can’t claim this total savings. They can only claim a fraction of the savings. We’ll use Tate’s analysis to determine the correct factor we can apply. At the unclean hands trial Tate stated he calculated the savings Rambus IP had on SDRAM was ~10%. If Rambus was asking for 2% on SDRAM, then the factor is 2/10 = 20%. Therefore if one invention provides savings of 2 to 5%, then Rambus should be able to claim 2% * 20% = 0.4% to 5% * 20% = 1%.

Either way we calculate the royalty rate for just one invention, it comes out to less than 1%.

3. Re. The number of inventions on trial.

Cal tells you that your list of inventions for the Hynix trial is neither complete nor accurate. And you reply:

That is just laughable, since Rambus has been pretty well tied in Payne's court. But have you taken a look at what is being charged in the DDR2 trial? And if that is not a complete list, what is?

ROTFLMAO. You’re hilarious! Your attempt at deflection and changing the topic will not work! Payne has absolutely nothing to do with the Hynix court. Although Payne’s Markman hearing nullified all of Rambus’ inventions (that were on trial), the appeals courts overruled almost all of them. Payne is a non-factor in this coming trial and this thread.

Bringing in the DDR2 trial in this discussion is bogus. The discussion is the effect on rmbs if they win on just one claim. It *could* fall below $10. The DDR2 trial could bring the price back up, but that’s not the issue here.

Fact is, Rambus is presenting 10 claims representing 4 inventions in this trial.

4. Re. Just because the claim sounds the same, doesn;t mean it is claiming the same invention.

This comment of yours really boggles the mind. Are you for real???? Either you are extremely stupid or you’re one hell of a cheerleader. I told you to look at patent claims '120-33 and '916-9. These are 2 of the 10 claims going to trial. Here they are again:

‘120-33. The memory device of claim 29 wherein the first operation code includes precharge information.

‘916-9. The method of claim 1 wherein the first operation code includes precharge information.

So you’re saying these two claims *may* sound the same, but they don’t refer to the same invention of precharge on read? ROTF

Another example from the list of 10 going to trial:

‘105-34. The memory device of claim 31 further including clock receiver circuitry to receive the first external clock and wherein the internal clock generation circuitry includes delay locked loop circuitry, coupled to the clock receiver circuitry, to generate the first internal clock signal and the second internal clock signal using at least the first external clock.

‘918-33. The method of claim 18 further including generating at least one internal clock signal using a delay locked loop and the external clock signal wherein the first amount of data corresponding to the first block size information is output onto the bus synchronously with respect to at least one internal clock signal.

‘916-40. The memory device of claim 26 further including delay lock loop circuitry, coupled to the clock receiver circuitry, to generate an internal clock signal, wherein the plurality of output drivers output the amount of data in response to the internal clock signal.

Although these 3 claims say different things, their purpose is identical. They establish the on-chip DLL invention. We have 3 claims reading on one invention.

5. Re. You still want to forget the summary judgments, the claims that are still open for SJ that are all in addition to the 10 going to trial (except 2 of course).

Can’t you stay on topic? The topic is win on one claim only.

Cal sure hopes you come up with way more intelligent posts in the future. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with admitting your errors.

Actually, that’s a great place to start. Ha.