Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 9
The whole concept of this kind of exchange is so cool; I read, I learn, sometimes I respond, somtimes I just take it in. But, whether good or bad, I always seem to find something that surprises me. I, like many, have lost a good chunk of cash on RMBS (at least for now). As an investor, that sucks, quite obviously. However, I also hold several semiconductor patents, and I must admit that lately I find myself waffling where I did not before. With patents, one always wants to see them do what they are supposed to do: protect innovation that genuinely belongs to you. Sometimes, though, I have to say that patents do get issued (in my personal experience) to those who do not even deserve to be named on the application (some hot-shot engineer's coat-tail riding supervisor, etc.). Having seen this kind of situation myself, I look at the RMBS situation wondering what's really going on, and recently, I've somewhat grudingly perused a devil's advocate point of view. I'd like to know what some of the more-rational participants think. For any closed-minded zealots blindly worshipping at the alter of RMBS, I'm just not interested. In any case...

JEDEC. Their stated purpose is to set up a standard that is "open," as in, royalty free, and to hell with any patent holders wanting to get paid. Part of me does not like it, but I wonder if they are trying to find ways to rip off patents, or to make a genuine effort to keep costs down by generating/finding configurations that do not infringe on existing intellectual property. No one would volunteer to pay if they can find an alternate solution.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that RMBS' initial 1990 filing was a topic of JEDEC conversation, and the members wanted to avoid RMBS art, rather than adopt and pay. Is that necessarily wrong, as long as the 1990 art was truly avoided? Now, let's get to IFX fraud claims. If IT COULD BE PROVEN (speculation, guys, chill out) that RMBS continuations were based on a "listen and modify" tactic, i.e., "oops! They might really be able to get around us that way, we had better get this info to our patent attorneys FAST!" Would we all think that should be ok, just because we want to see the stoack excel? I mean, would it be right. That is where the patent-holder thinking "GO RAMBUS" begins to think, "Hey, I don't WANT anyone to get around my patent, but if something is truly changed, different, whatever, then should I be changing one of my claims by adding something I DID NOT THINK OF?" That ceases to be innovation, in my mind, if it is the case. Is there ANY chance that happened here? At all? If so, that is unfortunate because it just is not right. If not, my conscience would be clear, but I have to admit this has caused me some consternation...
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.