Replies to post #8670 on Rambus (RMBS)

[Nicdagreek]

They'd just have to have a non-infringing DLL on the chip.

How quickly you forget. Whyte is allowing use of Doctrine of Equivalents to argue on-chip DLL infringement. It doesn't matter what kind of DLL the MMs come up with, if it's located on the chip, it infringes.

Sorry, Cal, not true. Even DOE has significant restrictions; but so as to make this post simple, I will send you some links later on the topic, ok?

I am 99% positive they are already working on a design around based on his order. This is SOP in the business.
Cal thinks you're bluffing. Got links?

I'm curious why you think I'd be bluffing, and why do you think Hynix would post a link about their design around activities LOL? In my business we see dozens of patent a WEEK, and design around is something that is a very basic skill and task that is always implemented at an early stage if there is ANY concern of an injunction.

Da Greek

[lolo]

99% positive already working on a design-around

I'm 99% positive that 1000 monkeys typing random characters
can eventually create an english sentence, but I'd hate to have the job to read through all the garbage to find something resembling Shakespeare.

But even a hep cat like Nic is probably congenitally incapable of comprehending the design space spanned by the unit vectors of DLL and VDDL. Any self-contained automatically-adjusting delay compensator would seem to be encompassed by the claims (and other IP). Game over...

The onry apploach I can see wourd be to move palt of the contlor roop off-chip; but then it wourdn't be compatibre with the regacy designs. rots of ruck with that thing...
RORo
CDB, you done shredded nic and he didn't even notice. Duh.....

[smd1234]

I happen to like that quite a bit:

Cal Da Biker ;-)

[JMKel]

Have to agree with you re: the DLL. You seem to be having a reincarnation.