Rambus jetzt kaufen! 01.10.03 bis $50 (Seite 502)

[cell1]

@2061
www.island.com dann oben rechts broker...

[ABV2003]

Danke, ich sage Danke

[Trainerfuchs]

@2061

http://www.level2quotes.com/

[ABV2003]

Kennt jemand von euch eine brauchbare Internetseite, wo ich vorbörsliche Kurse an der Nasdaq sehen kann?

[Magelan]

Macworld Daily News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday - February 15, 2005
Apple and Sony Cell chip alliance predicted
By Jonny Evans



Apple may use the new Cell processor, according to Merrill Lynch.


Analysts from the firm this morning raised their 12-month estimates on Apple to $102 per share (from $85). They did so because the analysts think Apple may announce a partnership with Sony, and may begin shipping products based on the Sony, IBM, Toshiba-developed Cell processor.


CBS MarketWatch reports Merrill`s prediction that such a partnership could be an iTunes-type movie store, a high-performance Apple/Sony video editing workstation or even a network ready TV.


If it happened, such a move would "put Apple at the heart of the HD and digital consumer revolution", the analysts said.


Rumours of a strengthened relationship with Sony have been rife since the surprise appearance of that company`s president Kunitake Ando with Apple CEO Steve Jobs during the latter`s Macworld San Francisco keynote speech.


Ostensibly there to help stress Jobs` keynot focus on High Definition video, Ando raised laughter when he noted that Jobs likes Sony products, but not all Sony products in a reference to iTunes and Sony Connect.


Apple CEO Steve Jobs is understood to have proposed an alliance with Sony regarding iTunes - an alliance Sony then spurned.


Apple`s Jobs has always expressed respect for Sony as a company.

[cell1]

positve Nachrichten schlagen sich im Kurs kaum wieder ?

[jethor tull]

Institutional Holdings now 25%
by: derdedel
Long-Term Sentiment: Buy 02/15/05 04:03 am
Msg: 741091 of 741093

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?mode=&kind=&timeframe… e=&splits=&earnings=&movingaverage=&lowerstudy=&comparison=&index=&symbol=RMBS&s ymbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&FormType= Institutional&mkttype=after&pathname=&page=holdings&selected=RMBS
jethor

[Indiancigar]

What to make of Rambus
Rick Currin
CurrinResearch.com
1/24/05

Rambus’ Long Road to a Patent Infringement Victory

With all the talk over the years about the evil Rambus and their patents, it’s pretty amazing to consider that it took the company many years to actually have a court decide that their patents are infringed by a DRAM manufacturer. Rambus first victories in their attempts to license their intellectual property to cover SDRAM and DDR SDRAM products came through settlements. Way back in 2000, Hitachi settled infringement litigation with Rambus. Other licensees eventually came around including, Samsung, Elpida, Toshiba and Matshushita, and Intel.

But early settlements have delivered mixed results. Because of continuing litigation with other companies, Rambus has been unable to secure adequate payment for the licensing efforts. Notably, three large DRAM manufacturers (Hynix, Infineon and Micron) have refused to pay and opted to litigate. And the largest licensee Samsung has only paid a minimal fixed rate pending successful resolution of the litigation against other DRAM manufacturers. Without an actual infringement determination, Rambus has been unable to ‘close the deal’ with additional DRAM licensees or return Samsung to royalties.

The determination in Judge Whyte’s California court that Hynix infringes 29 Rambus claims contained in four separate patents is a very significant milestone. The patent infringement was delivered via summary judgment meaning that there were not even any issues of fact for a jury to consider. To receive a summary judgment on so many claims perhaps answers what everyone already knew…Rambus has claims that cover the DDR SDRAM standard.

Rambus still faces the hurdle of withstanding challenges to the validity of the infringed patents. Rambus also faces non patent defenses aimed at rendering the infringed patents unenforceable.

The Long Road and the Short Road to Rambus’ Litigation Success

The Short Road

The short road to success involves settling the outstanding litigation. Although we have no explicit knowledge that settlement discussions are currently taking place such discussions have occurred in the past. The infringement determination actually gives Rambus additional leverage in such discussions. The prospect that 4 separate patents already infringed would be declared invalid seems remote at best. Rambus is also continuing to trial with 10 additional claims spread through 6 patents.

Given that Rambus has in the past levied higher royalty rates to a litigating party than a willing licensee, there is incentive for Hynix to see that the cause is all but lost based on the infringement findings already in hand. In addition, Hynix faces a likelihood that they will be required to post a substantial bond to ward off an injunction preventing them from producing memory in products headed for the U.S. Based on previous agreements signed by Hynix the threat of triple damages is also very real.

The other parties have incentive to settle litigation as well. The infringement determinations in the Hynix case will almost certainly be applicable to their products. Unfortunately though, the three remaining claims in the Infineon case all contain the read request claim language that did not receive summary judgment of infringement. In order to prevail on claims containing the term read request, Rambus must try the case to the jury.

Additional settlement incentives exist. Rambus has asserted antirust against Hynix, Infineon, Micron and Siemens. It is quite likely that a settlement with Hynix would involve Hynix turning over additional evidence of antitrust to Rambus and cooperating against the remaining infringers. That is a scenario laden with risk for both Micron and Infineon.

Based on the findings of the Administrative Law Judge in the FTC action that was brought against Rambus, Hynix is certainly central to the overall antitrust misdeeds raised in Rambus’ antitrust complaint. A Hynix employee openly discusses anti-Rambus schemes based at limiting the production of Rambus RDRAM and thwarting its marketplace adoption. His interaction with other members including Micron and Infineon are also highlighted in those findings. Based on the anticompetitive acts already being pled guilty to by infringers, Rambus likely has a fairly simple roadmap to prove their antitrust case. The exposure to that suit is up to $3 billion dollars to a single party. That suit however is not close to seeing a courtroom decide the issue.

Of course settling with any one party individually has pitfalls to Rambus. Rambus already has demonstrated that settling with one party does not necessarily translate to widespread licensing with others. Settling prior to receiving affirmation of the infringed patents’ validity leaves validity challenges available to the parties that continue to litigate. In addition, any party that has not settled is available to continue challenges aimed at enforceability. Infineon in particular has a seemingly friendly venue for scoring points against Rambus in Judge Payne’s Virginia court. Based on the way those proceeding have gone we fully expect Rambus to be handed a legal setback in Virginia aimed at preventing Rambus from enforcing their patents. Although such a result is unlikely to be sustained on appeal, it’s the sort of risk and delay that could make settling now an attractive option for Rambus.

Given all the risk that still remains to both sides, it is conceivable that the infringers have offered to settle at a lower rate than Rambus is willing to accept. Although we have no real way of knowing, the circumstances would suggest that the parties may simply be separated by the amount they are willing to pay or to accept.

Although such a short road to victory could remove the risk Rambus has of facing the adverse impact of Judge Payne, it might fail to allow Rambus to meet its full potential as a licensor of its valuable assets.

The Long Road

The long road to litigation success involves litigating the outstanding cases to completion. As with all litigation, the risk continues while you litigate. The process could take a different amount of time in each case. Hynix for example could appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals. That appeal could take about 12-16 months. It is likely that the CAFC would affirm an infringement decision and that would effectively end that case.

The Infineon case could be a longer affair. Assuming Rambus is unsuccessful in Payne’s court, it is likely that Rambus could win an appeal at the CAFC. However that might not end the matter as the case could be remanded yet again facing another cycle of delay. It is conceivable that the Infineon case could take three more years of litigation before Rambus could collect.

The Micron case is still early in the litigation process and could easily drag out 2 or more years from here.

Rambus may view the delay risks that remain as temporary given the very positive early returns in California. However because Samsung has previously tied their willingness to pay a royalty to litigation success against other DRAM manufacturers, the long road has a potentially unpleasant wait for shareholders. The final payoff of this approach however is likely the largest as Rambus would impose royalty rates based on unsuccessful litigation.

Market Reaction to the Patent Infringement

The initial market reaction to the determination of infringement was positive. However with Rambus having recently missed earnings due to litigation expenses, the prospect that this litigation is headed for the ‘long road’ will continue to hamper enthusiasm for this monumental decision. Indeed Rambus forecast even higher litigation expenses for the next quarter. In addition, the prospect that a looming litigation event to move the stock could come from Judge Payne has likely sent a few investors to the sidelines. Analysts rightfully note that without settlement, Rambus could still be a long way off from seeing royalties associated with this infringement determination.

While the decision in California certainly puts Rambus in a position to ultimately prevail in court, institutions might continue to stay on the sidelines until the litigation mess is resolved.

Unless Rambus can demonstrate some tangible impacts of the recent litigation decision, the stock could remain inextricably tied to the latest litigation event as a driver of near term valuation. The coming announcements of the cell processor could help the stock however.

Which Road for Shareholders?

In many respects Rambus has now secured the infringement determination that makes continuing on the long road a sensible course of action. The breadth of Rambus patents received a huge validation as far as being required for practicing high speed memory solutions. Securing a ruling of validity on those patents already found to infringe could certainly provide additional leverage in negotiations regardless of having to endure appeals.

If the long road is the path Rambus chooses, it is quite likely that the company could secure the royalty levels that will propel this stock beyond what most analysts would dare mention. The FTC however has said what it means…Rambus stands to collect billions in future royalties from the DRAM manufacturers. Indeed a path that leads to a mix of willing licensee rates and ‘litigation rates’ could actually produce in excess of $1 billion annual revenues from DRAM manufacturers. This is before you even consider that memory controllers are also in line for royalties to Rambus.

A strong victory in the infringement and validity of the patents in California could allow the company to seek out additional licensees in the area of memory controllers. Rambus is not suing non DRAM manufacturers for memory controllers. However, the company has licensed memory controllers before to non DRAM manufacturers. The memory controller is the other end of the chip to chip design that communicates with the DRAM. If Rambus can turn litigation victory in the California trial into a sort of ‘coalition of willing licensees’ outside the DRAM litigants; this could be a very attractive scenario for simply litigating with DRAM manufacturers to completion. That is, of the numerous companies requiring access to Rambus IP that are not in litigation, Rambus has the opportunity to begin to license those companies at willing licensee rates.

Obviously, such licensees could ultimately be subject to what would happen in the appellate process with litigants. But licensing companies willing to move forward with Rambus IP required for their products could certainly produce some significant momentum for the company. It could also clear up a good deal of uncertainty with respect to the prospect of serial litigation in memory controllers.

In our view, for the long road scenario to be attractive to investors, Rambus has to be able to turn a near term litigation victory (pending appeal) into revenue. Additional opportunities to secure new licensees could also exist. For example although Rambus has a license agreement with Intel that expires in ’06, an additional agreement covering future R&D and patent activity would be viewed very favorably as a means to secure revenue while litigation remains.

Rambus’ involvement with the cell processor provides additional incentive for companies to seek broad licensing arrangements aimed at securing access to any marketplace controller needed just as Elpida has done in DRAM. Elpida for example has already licensed from Rambus virtually all forms of DRAM including DDR, DDRII, XDR and FB-DIMM. Rambus is also in the position of needing to license Samsung again soon. Although Rambus has a triggering provision in their current deal with Samsung that is dependent on successful litigation, it is unclear whether Rambus can use the interim results of infringement to secure better terms in a new license.

Advantages of the Short Road

Of course putting litigation within the DRAM industry to bed has its advantages. If Rambus can secure licensing terms from the DRAM manufacturers on DDR equivalent to or greater than the 1.75% they were seeking for RDRAM, they will have succeeded in gaining what they would have made if RDRAM had never been conspired against. The key catalyst to the stock would be the value of future royalties, infusion of cash, elimination of uncertainty, and an ability to plan growth in the licensing of advanced DRAM technologies. Settling litigation could also allow Rambus to pursue the controller market without a heavy litigation burden on multiple fronts.

It’s Time for Rambus to Produce Licensees

In a very real sense, Rambus could have serious choices to make as far as shareholder value. While litigating to the end certainly has an attractive payout, it remains a rather long road with substantial risks remaining. The company might do well to begin to execute a strategy that defines a path to higher profitability while litigating if that is the choice they make. Thus far Rambus has not been able to ‘forecast’ such a path though their technology roadmap suggests a bright future with XDR and serial link interfaces.

Because of the inability to foresee a near term end to the litigation , investors are required to have the patience of Job enduring the afflictions of Judge Payne and the potential whims of the FTC to undo portions of a sweeping pro-Rambus decision.

We believe Rambus will see many multiples of its current sub $20 price. The recent infringement determination suggests that Rambus should already be receiving up to $1 billion in DRAM royalties annually. Rambus 2004 revenues were $145 million.

The long term path to litigation success would likely bring the highest profitability. However, the timetable for appreciable gains in the stock due to legal success remains wrought with potential delay. We would be more than thrilled to see the company resolve their DRAM litigation war at royalties somewhere north of RDRAM for DDR. The company could then move forward with licensing on advanced DRAM products in accordance with additional patent coverage and move forward with broader licensing. Particularly, Rambus needs to move forward with licensing controllers, a broad area in hiatus since the DRAM litigation began. In other words, for a company that seeks to derive money from licensing its inventions, its time to produce additional licensees.

Rambus has superb technical solutions. Their business model requires the company to be compensated for their solutions. While the industry might prefer solutions that lie outside Rambus proprietary RDRAM or even XDR solutions, that doesn’t mean the industry gets free use Rambus’ property to create solutions avoiding Rambus’ proprietary solutions.

Judge Whyte has already shown the role of Rambus patents in high speed memory solutions. It doesn’t matter if the marketplace chooses RDRAM, DDR, DDR2 or XDR; the market has chosen technologies that infringe Rambus patents. Investors are faced with the prospect of sitting on the sidelines or waiting for the courts to further validate Rambus’ patent rights and payments due to Rambus. However, that wait may be more palatable with the assurance that with valid, enforceable patents, infringement is a given.

We applaud the company for its leading edge technical excellence and its ability to grow revenues in the face of incredible amounts of litigation. It’s a remarkable achievement given the past efforts of Rambus’ foes to cripple the company. But the time has come for the company to demonstrate that it can close the deal with the broad range of the industry willing to license best in class technology used to enable their products

[Kashogi_de]

Cell hat schon eine schnuckelige Größe
Wo das wohl überall reinpaßt?

The Cell microprocessor that will run the next version
of Sony`s PlayStation video game machine will have nine
processor cores and run faster than 4GHz. At right, the chip
is shown next to pushpins for scale.

[rambolino]

vom yahooboard:

evidence. In conjunction with its own discovery obtained in it`s litigation with the amigoes and the FTC evidence, Rambus should be able to construct a compelling AT case and hopefully, in addition, put the final nails in the amigoes coffins re their litigation conduct defenses. It seems to me that the key uncertainty is the timing of the eventual "win". Rambus might be only weeks away as the dominoes fall or maybe more than a year away. The events transpiring in Payne`s and Whyte`s court during the next few weeks should provide more clues as to this timing.--

"We are very pleased to have this delay behind
us, and now expect this caseto move
forward aggressively," said John Danforth,
senior vice president and general counsel
at Rambus. "Our first aim is to get access
to what we understand to be the price-fixing
documents that have already been gathered in
related civil and criminal cases by a number
of parties. We believe that those documents
likely contributed to the near record fines,
guilty pleas and jail sentences already
reported by the U.S. Department of Justice in
a related, still-pending criminal investigation."