Replies to post #8677 on Rambus (RMBS)

[bearinvt]

>>Speaking of which, look at all the recs for stk_hawk's CAS latency post. It's wrong.<<

Please explain. TIA

[Skeptic]

Speaking of which, look at all the recs for stk_hawk's CAS latency post. It's wrong. Doesn't anybody do their own thinking there?

There might be two or three guys (yourself included) that understand the technology/patents well enough to rebut Stk's analysis. Most of the people that follow Rambus and post on message boards are dummies like me who aren't electrical engineers and aren't patent lawyers. Given that this is what Rambus is all about - litigation and cutting-edge technology - it's kinda ironic. I sit there and read these debates and these posts and counterposts and I find myself feeling wishy-washy. Nic will post something that sounds convincing and I'll think he has the right of it and then I'll read a post by Stk or Cal and think they are right.
Warren Buffett wouldn't approve of me holding this stock given I have no special experience in law or tech so I continue to question my sanity in investing here. I do know why I'm here however - and it's greed - pure and simple. Even a dummy like me can do the math on 3.5% royalties on a 25 billion market (I am unequivocally NOT saying I believe this is the type of revenue Rambus can achieve but even half that will be a decent haul).

I'm still trying to figure out what's protected and what's not in the AT case. Shit, I'm still trying to decipher some of LOLo's posts. But, from a big picture point of view, I see this stock going higher because I see Rambus winning the infringement trial and not losing validity or enforcability in phase III. I see settlements at some point (look at RIMM) and I see the euphoria bringing in some buyers (probably the momo guys who will sell a week later). And my final prediction, which you can take to the bank, is that some of the prognosticators will be right and some will be wrong.

[smd1234]

Cal -

"'99% positive already working on a design-around' bluff"

I'm 99% sure they've been at it for a looooong time - to no avail.

smd

[Nicdagreek]

For the sake of completeness,this is what I wrote in response to the Stkhwk post:

From stkhkw: Three other claims chosen for trial, do not use the “access time register” claim language.


You've got to be kidding me, you really think Stone is going to make this argument? With a straight face?

Let's take a look:

Patent '918

24. The method of claim 18 further including storing a delay time code in an access time register, the delay time code being representative of a number of clock cycles to transpire before data is output onto the bus after receipt of a read request and wherein the first amount of data corresponding to the first block size information is output in accordance with the delay time code.

So I store a delay time code in a register which I call access time register. This delay time code must be "representative" (equal according to the Markman) to the number of clock cycles. You acknowledge Rambus cannot prove DOE on that claim. But now for these other claims:


28. a register which stores a value that is representative of an amount of time to transpire after which the memory device outputs the first amount of data

You claim this is different, and not a "register" which stores the access time value LOL? I wanna see that presentation.

40. a register which stores a value that is representative of an amount of time to transpire after which the memory device outputs the first amount of data

Ditto

So I get it, these are not an "access time register" instead they are an (unnamed) register which stores "access time." Kindly explain how an "access time register" is physically different in any way from the other "registers" in the claims above. If this is your position on the best they can do, they might as well mail it in...

The point made by Whyte was not what they called the register, but the thing that was stored in it: in this case a "value" that is representative of "an amount of time" to transpire after which the memory device outputs the first amount of data. You now know that this is not how the Hynix products work;they store a value which is less than this. If Rambus had done this right the first, second or third time,the claim would have read "an amount of time related to..." or "associated with..." instead of "representative of" - everyone knows the latter is the same as "represents" so requires an equal value. Most patent attorneys in the EE arts know the difference, and it would have avoided the argument about whether it had to be the same or something close to it. But, I forgot, Rambus never makes mistakes LOL.

Da Greek