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]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net>
wrote:Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in justa 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.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[George Macdonald]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:
Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in justa 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]

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<41b50ff2a0f0f8218d60b19b060d6988@news.1usenet.com>... On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in justa 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. ------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

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]

Tim Sullivan <timsullivan2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
: 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]

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<e4no20p4vdsnkug3u8a5frinbi1i5p5gqf@4ax.com>... On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in justa 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.

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

[chrisv]

timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (John Corse) wrote:
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 thisdecision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome forRambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.

Poor JC. Did you get caught long on Rambust?

[Tony Hill]

On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim
Sullivan) wrote: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 thisdecision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome forRambus, 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-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,598,171.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>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Tim Sullivan]

"jack" <NUVAARJBLLYO@spammotel.com> wrote in message news:<c0i5se$17kosh$1@ID-127331.news.uni-berlin.de>... Tim Sullivan <timsullivan2003@yahoo.com> wrote: : 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]

On a sunny day (Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:01:52 GMT) it happened Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in
<ea3dde133adcec808fd40dfc3da1e400@news.1usenet.com>:
On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (TimSullivan) wrote: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 thisdecision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome forRambus, 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 shouldnot have been revoked right? For anyone who's interested, here's thepatent, 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 number6,598,171, available here:http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,598,171.WKU.&OS=PN/6,598,171&RS=PN/6,598,171If you want to do some reading, you might want to start with the USPatent as it's only about 25 pages of legal jargon. For those whowant the quick version, here's the abstract:<quoting>The present invention includes a memory subsystem comprising at leasttwo semiconductor devices, including at least one memory device,connected to a bus, where the bus includes a plurality of bus linesfor carrying substantially all address, data and control informationneeded by said memory devices, where the control information includesdevice-select information and the bus has substantially fewer buslines than the number of bits in a single address, and the bus carriesdevice-select information without the need for separate device-selectlines connected directly to individual devices. The present inventionalso includes a protocol for master and slave devices to communicateon the bus and for registers in each device to differentiate eachdevice and allow bus requests to be directed to a single or to alldevices. The present invention includes modifications to prior-artdevices 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 memoryaddresses 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]

On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim
Sullivan) wrote:
Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<41b50ff2a0f0f8218d60b19b060d6988@news.1usenet.com>... Of course, this is only one of the MANY patents held by the law firm of Rambus, Scambus and Shambus.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]

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<ea3dde133adcec808fd40dfc3da1e400@news.1usenet.com>... On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote: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!

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.
<snip> Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Tim Sullivan]

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<q2mp20d50me9osb0c6eeinqr22u5fblj75@4ax.com>... timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (John Corse) wrote: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 thisdecision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome forRambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why. 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]

On 13 Feb 2004 03:38:18 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan)
wrote:
George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:<e4no20p4vdsnkug3u8a5frinbi1i5p5gqf@4ax.com>... On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:43 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote:Curious what people think about this development! The FTC trial is in justa 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.RMBS trades on future earnings like most stock and this decision doeslower the expected future earnings thus the drop in share price.Rambus business was hurt by this decision so I dispute your use ofloaded language.

Uhh, speculate and rumor is part of your pump-pump-pump half-cycle;
dump-dump-dump is the other half of the cycle.<guffaw> Looks like you'll
be going back into pump mode again, uhh Tim... uhh John... uhh Martha??
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 wereimpermissible broadening, lack of clarity and prior art. Most likelyonly if the reason is prior art will it have an effect on the USlitigation.

It's just politics my son! My bet: the other 3 patents are toast as well.
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. TheFTC case is an anti-trust action to stop Rambus enforcing its'presumed valid patents. The FTC plays no role in determining ifpatents are valid like the EPO does or Federal Courts/CAFC/SupremeCourt do in the USA.

What I said.<sigh>
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.

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.
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 thefact that Rambus is not a manufacturer, "even fabless one" isirrelevant. If you got your wish, there would be no pure R&D companiesthat licenced their patented technology. In high capital requirementindustries this would result in even more oligopolistic behaviour thanwe see at the moment. There would be no outside competitive forces torequire these industries to innovate at a reasonable pace. You don'twork for one of these oligopolies that would benefit if pure IPcompanies 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]

On 13 Feb 2004 14:51:40 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<q2mp20d50me9osb0c6eeinqr22u5fblj75@4ax.com>... timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (John Corse) wrote: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 thisdecision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome forRambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why. Poor JC. Did you get caught long on Rambust?Frued would have some interesting things to say about yours and jacksobsession with this John Corse character. You sound like you reallymiss him and there are all sorts of repressed desires happening.Also, please think of some new material for the future, your rants aregetting 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

[Stacey]

Tim Sullivan wrote:
Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<ea3dde133adcec808fd40dfc3da1e400@news.1usenet.com>... On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote: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! 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

[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?

--

Stacey

[Tim Sullivan]

<snip> 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 thefact that Rambus is not a manufacturer, "even fabless one" isirrelevant. If you got your wish, there would be no pure R&D companiesthat licenced their patented technology. In high capital requirementindustries this would result in even more oligopolistic behaviour thanwe see at the moment. There would be no outside competitive forces torequire these industries to innovate at a reasonable pace. You don'twork for one of these oligopolies that would benefit if pure IPcompanies 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??


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]

Neil Maxwell <neil.maxwell@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<rhcq209mia366ffb2qihqrm1pt83upf1ch@4ax.com>... On 13 Feb 2004 01:25:39 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<41b50ff2a0f0f8218d60b19b060d6988@news.1usenet.com>... Of course, this is only one of the MANY patents held by the law firm of Rambus, Scambus and Shambus.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.

"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.

[daytripper]

On 13 Feb 2004 20:44:35 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:Nice dodge. Still didn't answer the point about pure IP companiesproviding necessary competition in oligopolistic industries.

I for one have zero problem with pure IP companies - as long as they're
selling THEIR OWN IP.

/daytripper (Yeah, it really is as simple as that...)

[daytripper]

On 13 Feb 2004 20:53:08 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:No I am not John Corse. You know, there can be more than 1 person whoowns Rambus stock and posts here.

True - there's no shortage of shills on Usenet.

But if you're gonna start posting things others can agree with, you may lose
your troll status here...

/daytripper (hth ;-)

[Stacey]

daytripper wrote:
On 13 Feb 2004 20:44:35 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:Nice dodge. Still didn't answer the point about pure IP companiesproviding necessary competition in oligopolistic industries. I for one have zero problem with pure IP companies - as long as they're selling THEIR OWN IP.

-Exactly-!!!!

--

Stacey

[Stacey]

Tim Sullivan wrote:
You know, there can be more than 1 person who owns Rambus stock and posts here.

Trying to pump that stock back up? Or have you already dumped it the day
before this was "news", bought it back 2 days later and are trying to pump
it back up?

Didn't see the words "Stock pumping" in the name of the newsgroup.

--

Stacey

[Tim Sullivan]

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0jri7$17v2ds$5@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... 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?

NON SEQUITUR
Pronunciation: nân 'sekwitur


WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises
[n] a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it


See Also: conclusion, reply, response

[Tim Sullivan]

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0jr4l$17v2ds$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... 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.

You seem to have extremely limited reading comprehension. Please quote
one example where I was "pumping" Rambus from my post:

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.

[Tim Sullivan]

daytripper <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dhar20t38l26vs2gnoivntfccq7ctvl0ok@4ax.com>... On 13 Feb 2004 20:44:35 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:Nice dodge. Still didn't answer the point about pure IP companiesproviding necessary competition in oligopolistic industries. I for one have zero problem with pure IP companies - as long as they're selling THEIR OWN IP. /daytripper (Yeah, it really is as simple as that...)

Can you explain to me how Rambus is selling someone elses IP? You know
the USPTO doesn't allow you to patent other peoples inventions, right?
You do know what the "doctrine of equivalents" is?

[George Macdonald]

On 13 Feb 2004 20:44:35 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan)
wrote:
<snip>> 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 thefact that Rambus is not a manufacturer, "even fabless one" isirrelevant. If you got your wish, there would be no pure R&D companiesthat licenced their patented technology. In high capital requirementindustries this would result in even more oligopolistic behaviour thanwe see at the moment. There would be no outside competitive forces torequire these industries to innovate at a reasonable pace. You don'twork for one of these oligopolies that would benefit if pure IPcompanies 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.Nice dodge. Still didn't answer the point about pure IP companiesproviding necessary competition in oligopolistic industries.

That's fine and dandy *IFF* they actually have something original and ask a
reasonable price... though it *does* raise the question of how much they
should pay all the other patent holders which they want to piggy-back their
"idea" on. Certainly, a bunch of shysters trying to hold up an entire
world-wide industry for ransom does not qualify.
And if you want to talk about parasites you should take a good hardlook yourselves and the companies that you guys work for and theexpensing of options. This is one of the greatest scams going andhopefully the FASB will put an end to it this year.

The company I work for does not have "options". Maybe you're thinking of
M$.

Rgds, George Macdonald

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

[Stacey]

Tim Sullivan wrote:
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0jri7$17v2ds$5@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... 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? NON SEQUITUR Pronunciation: nân 'sekwitur WordNet Dictionary Definition: [n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises


You said you own their stock, so how does this apply? You obviously have
something to gain by "pumping" rambus stock if for no other reason you
NEVER post on any subject other than rambus.
--

Stacey

[Stacey]

Tim Sullivan wrote:
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0jr4l$17v2ds$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... 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. You seem to have extremely limited reading comprehension. Please quote one example where I was "pumping" Rambus from my post:


Are you this stupid? The below is "damage control" if I've ever seen it.
You're obviously afraid other people will see this EPO action as a
reflection of what the FTC will decide and you need to control this so your
rambus stock doesn't tank before you can dump it, if you haven't already,
rebought and are trying to pump it back up..

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.

--

Stacey

[jack]

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
: Tim Sullivan wrote:
:
:: Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:: news:<c0jri7$17v2ds$5@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>...
::
:: WordNet Dictionary
::
:: Definition: [n] (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from
:: the premises
:
:
: You said you own their stock, so how does this apply? You obviously
: have something to gain by "pumping" rambus stock if for no other
: reason you NEVER post on any subject other than rambus.

Don't you know, Stacey, this is just another John Corse alias. Even if
this lamer isn't Corse, you can bet he's the favorite pivot man in the
RMBS-Corse-Sullivan circle jerking pump-a-thon. This dude is SUCH an
idiot! LOL!

J.

--
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html and
here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <c0jra1$17v2ds$4@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>, Stacey
<fotocord@yahoo.com> writes
Seems some lawyers claimed to have developed linux..

Alright, who's get the c.s.i.p.h.c screen cleaner?

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[daytripper]

On 14 Feb 2004 03:03:12 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:
daytripper <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dhar20t38l26vs2gnoivntfccq7ctvl0ok@4ax.com>... On 13 Feb 2004 20:44:35 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:Nice dodge. Still didn't answer the point about pure IP companiesproviding necessary competition in oligopolistic industries. I for one have zero problem with pure IP companies - as long as they're selling THEIR OWN IP. /daytripper (Yeah, it really is as simple as that...)Can you explain to me how Rambus is selling someone elses IP? You knowthe USPTO doesn't allow you to patent other peoples inventions, right?You do know what the "doctrine of equivalents" is?

Puhleaze, if you ever had a clue about patent strategies you'd know just about
any well documented application that doesn't set off alarm bells will - given
the required financial support throughout the process - gain a patent.

The real proof of a patent is how the claims are defended at trial.
And so far Rambust's track record on that score is pretty bad.

As for our illustrious patent office: If the USPTO had been driving the
covered wagons, the West would still be undiscovered...

/daytripper (hth ;-)

[Robert Myers]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:08:15 GMT, daytripper
<day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2004 03:03:12 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote:daytripper <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dhar20t38l26vs2gnoivntfccq7ctvl0ok@4ax.com>... On 13 Feb 2004 20:44:35 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote: >Nice dodge. Still didn't answer the point about pure IP companies >providing necessary competition in oligopolistic industries. I for one have zero problem with pure IP companies - as long as they're selling THEIR OWN IP. /daytripper (Yeah, it really is as simple as that...)Can you explain to me how Rambus is selling someone elses IP? You knowthe USPTO doesn't allow you to patent other peoples inventions, right?You do know what the "doctrine of equivalents" is?Puhleaze, if you ever had a clue about patent strategies you'd know just aboutany well documented application that doesn't set off alarm bells will - giventhe required financial support throughout the process - gain a patent.The real proof of a patent is how the claims are defended at trial.And so far Rambust's track record on that score is pretty bad.As for our illustrious patent office: If the USPTO had been driving thecovered wagons, the West would still be undiscovered...

Aww, geez. Another Rambus thread. You're right about a patent not
meaning much until it's been tested in the courts, but Mr. Sullivan
just uttered the scariest of phrases in patent law: "the doctrine of
equivalents."

I'm not going to do a groklaw-type thing and try to explain the
doctrine of equivalents, but, in my limited experience, the doctrine
of equivalents can make a patent, if it is enforceable at all, pretty
sweeping in its effects. I've seen it at work, and the results were
not pretty.

This whole thing sounds like a complete crap shoot to me. No offense
to anyone involved in the discussion who has a settled opinion on the
matter, but this whole thing reminds me of a British saying: "Before
the court, you are in God's hands;" that is, anything can happen.

The whole patent system depends on being able to draw clearly-defined
boundaries between inventions. Even were such a thing possible in
concept, and I don't think it is, the doctrine of equivalents pretty
much guarantees that you can take the most vaguely-related but
enforceable patent and argue that it applies to someone else's IP.
You may or may not prevail, but the doctrine of equivalents guarantees
a muddy outcome and lengthy and costly proceedings. The big winners
are the lawyers, as usual.

My personal opinion is that the whole damn patent system is broken but
that we'll never see any change because as it stands it guarantees a
transfer of wealth from productive citizens (engineeers) to a predator
class (lawyers).

RM

[Tony Hill]

On 14 Feb 2004 02:53:06 -0800, timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim
Sullivan) wrote:Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0jr4l$17v2ds$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... Tim Sullivan wrote: And you never miss a chance to plug rambus.You seem to have extremely limited reading comprehension. Please quoteone example where I was "pumping" Rambus from my post: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 thisdecision by the European Patent Office because it is a bad outcome forRambus, even though it appears you have no clue as to the reason why.

I'm happy about this decision because it was the RIGHT decision. That
patent never should have been granted in the first place! I don't
care whether it was Rambus that had it, or Micron, or Microsoft, or
whoever! It was an overly broad patent that covered a lot of
pre-existing technology.

If patent officers had more than ~20 hours total to do all their
research into a patent it probably would not have been granted at all.
However the USPTO and most other patent offices around the world are
totally understaffed and underqualified, so often these sorts of
patents squeeze through the cracks (cracks which are starting to look
more and more like gaping holes).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[jack]

daytripper <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
: As for our illustrious patent office: If the USPTO had been driving
: the
: covered wagons, the West would still be undiscovered...

Oh Daytrip, that is toooooo funny. Can I use that quote sometime in
another Usenet NG? Ooof!

J.

[jack]

Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote:
<big snip>

: My personal opinion is that the whole damn patent system is broken but
: that we'll never see any change because as it stands it guarantees a
: transfer of wealth from productive citizens (engineeers) to a predator
: class (lawyers).

Wow, what a night! First Daytrip, and now Robert Myers with
"one-liners" you just gotta love! Hey Robert, can I use **this** remark
as well in another (not to be named) NG? Of course, I will credit the
author!

J.
-
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html and
here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

[Tim Sullivan]

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0lq27$18o0pu$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... Tim Sullivan wrote: Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0jr4l$17v2ds$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... 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. You seem to have extremely limited reading comprehension. Please quote one example where I was "pumping" Rambus from my post: Are you this stupid? The below is "damage control" if I've ever seen it. You're obviously afraid other people will see this EPO action as a reflection of what the FTC will decide and you need to control this so your rambus stock doesn't tank before you can dump it, if you haven't already, rebought and are trying to pump it back up..

I did damage control by saying this decision is bad? You are so
ignorant that you don't even know the EPO trial and FTC trial are
dealing with completely different issues with no overlap. I am buy and
hold, and even if I was trying to "pump and dump" this would be the
last place I would come. I am just trying to add some balance and
facts to counter the ignorant anti-Rambus shills who semm to have a
vested interest through their employers.

[Robert Myers]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:04:31 +0100, "jack"
<NUVAARJBLLYO@spammotel.com> wrote:
Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote:<big snip>: My personal opinion is that the whole damn patent system is broken but: that we'll never see any change because as it stands it guarantees a: transfer of wealth from productive citizens (engineeers) to a predator: class (lawyers).Wow, what a night! First Daytrip, and now Robert Myers with"one-liners" you just gotta love! Hey Robert, can I use **this** remarkas well in another (not to be named) NG? Of course, I will credit theauthor!
It's a public posting. Feel free.

RM

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (14 Feb 2004 17:01:36 -0800) it happened
timsullivan2003@yahoo.com (Tim Sullivan) wrote in
<1d62d428.0402141701.5635bb66@posting.google.com>:
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0lq27$18o0pu$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>... Tim Sullivan wrote: Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0jr4l$17v2ds$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>...> 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. You seem to have extremely limited reading comprehension. Please quote one example where I was "pumping" Rambus from my post: Are you this stupid? The below is "damage control" if I've ever seen it. You're obviously afraid other people will see this EPO action as a reflection of what the FTC will decide and you need to control this so your rambus stock doesn't tank before you can dump it, if you haven't already, rebought and are trying to pump it back up..I did damage control by saying this decision is bad? You are soignorant that you don't even know the EPO trial and FTC trial aredealing with completely different issues with no overlap. I am buy andhold, and even if I was trying to "pump and dump" this would be thelast place I would come. I am just trying to add some balance andfacts to counter the ignorant anti-Rambus shills who semm to have avested interest through their employers.
From a personal point of view, I think if you invest in that stuff, you
sort of support it, but of cause business is business.
Ethics are a different thing.
But this patent is so much prior art (Philips i2c I first used in the 80ties)
that it sort of makes you think they got some high school kid and
bought the idea from him / her.
If the rest of the stuff is the same quality, then they should be arrested for
obstruction of technology advancement if not anything else.
I ain't saying I would not buy puts on it to get rich... :-)
But until now I have not.
Why the patent was given to them I absolutely do not understand.
No qualified people, man maybe we need something different for all this
patent stuff, although computer searches should make it easier for a patent
office to find prior art.
Jan

[Stacey]

Tim Sullivan wrote:
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I did damage control by saying this decision is bad?

You are doing damage control for rambus by showing up only to defend them
when ever the word 'rambus' is used in this newsgroup.

--

Stacey

[Stacey]

Robert Myers wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:08:15 GMT, daytripper
My personal opinion is that the whole damn patent system is broken but that we'll never see any change because as it stands it guarantees a transfer of wealth from productive citizens (engineeers) to a predator class (lawyers).

And as long as the judges deciding these cases and the polititions making
the laws are all lawyers themselves, this is likely to only get worse. The
only law suit I have any real experience with we won and the only person
who walked away with a dime was the lawyer.
--

Stacey