rambus - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[brada]

gibt es irgendwelche news, die den kursanstieg in den beiden letzten handelsstunden von freitag begründen ????

in 2 stunden wurden 4 mio aktien gehandelt bei ein kursanstieg von 11%.

[tockey1]

Guck mal bei myResearch.de

[brada]

ROUNDUP 2: Infineon schuldig in US-Wettbewerbsverfahren - 160 Mio USD Strafe

MÜNCHEN (dpa-AFX) - Der Halbleiter-Hersteller Infineon hat sich der Kartellrechts-Verletzung in den USA schuldig bekannt und muss eine Strafe von 160 Millionen US-Dollar zahlen. Diese Zahlung im Zusammenhang mit dem DRAM-Wettbewerbsverfahren sei gänzlich von Rückstellungen gedeckt und erfolge in gleichen Raten bis 2009, meldete die Infineon Technologies AG am Mittwochabend in München. Die US-Justiz ermittelt auch gegen andere führende Chipproduzenten wegen Preisabsprachen. Zudem nimmt die EU-Kommission den europäischen Markt für Speicherprodukte seit einiger Zeit unter die Lupe.

Ein Infineon-Sprecher sagte auf Anfrage: " Die Einigung muss erst noch von dem zuständigen US-Gericht in San Francisco bestätigt werden." Zu den Ergebnisaussichten für das Ende September auslaufende Geschäftsjahr 2003/04 und das nächste Fiskaljahr könne noch nichts gesagt werden. " Das Verfahren mit Rambus läuft weiter und hat mit dieser Einigung überhaupt nichts zu tun" , ergänzte der Sprecher. Mit dem US-Chipproduzenten Rambus sind die Münchener in einen langjährigen Patentrechtsstreit verwickelt.

JUSTIZ: `ZEICHEN FÜR HIGH-TECH-BRANCHE`

Generalstaatsanwalt John Ashcroft sagte zu der Einigung mit Infineon: " Von diesem Fall geht das Signal aus, dass Preiskartelle in der High-Tech-Branche nicht geduldet werden." Die Beilegung sei die bisher drittgrößte Antiwettbewerbs-Strafe, die je verhängt worden sei. Im Zuge des Wettbewerbsverfahrens wird auch gegen die koreanische Samsung und die US-amerikanische Micron ermittelt. Auch gegen die südkoreanische Hynix laufen nach Medienberichten Ermittlungen.

Zusammen mit Infineon beherrschen diese Gesellschaften mehr als drei Viertel des Markts für DRAM-Speicherchips. Die drei Unternehmen haben wie Infineon DRAM-Patentrechtstreitigkeiten mit Rambus. Marktbeobachter halten es für möglich, dass nun auch ein Ende dieses Zwists näher rückt. Samsung Electronics ist der weltgrößte Hersteller von DRAM-Speicherchhips, gefolgt von Micron, Hynix und Infineon.

OPFER COMPUTERBAUER - KÖNNTEN KLAGE EINREICHEN

Die Opfer der Preisabsprache sind die Computerbauer Dell , Hewlett-Packard , Apple , IBM sowie Gateway . Der ebenfalls mit dem Fall befasste Generalstaatsanwalt R. Hewitt Pate sagte, dass die Computerhersteller wohl Zivilklagen einreichen würden, mit denen sie eine Ausgleichszahlung für die ihnen entstandenen geschäftlichen Schäden anstrebten.

Die US-Justiz ermittelt seit Anfang 2002 gegen die großen DRAM-Anbieter. Den Untersuchungen vorausgegangen waren mehrere Monate, in denen die Speicherchips teurer wurden, ohne dass die Nachfrage entsprechend angezogen wäre. Vom Schlussquartal 2001 bis zum ersten Quartal 2002 stiegen die DRAM-Preise auf dem Spot-Markt von 1,50 auf 5 US-Dollar. Bis Juni schrumpften sie dann wieder auf etwas über 2 Dollar.

INFINEON: 212 MIO EURO RÜCKSTELLUNGEN

Infineon hat nach Aussage des Unternehmens-Sprechers insgesamt Rückstellungen von 212 Millionen Euro (derzeit 257,54 Mio USD) gebildet. Im dritten Geschäftsquartal (Ende Juni) hatte der Halbleiter-Produzent diese Rücklagen im Zusammenhang mit dem DRAM-Wettbewerbsverfahren um 184 Millionen Euro aufgestockt und war daher überraschend in die roten Zahlen gerutscht.

Der Münchener Konzern einigte sich mit der Wettbewerbs-Sparte des US-amerikanischen Justizministeriums. Infineon bekennt sich nach eigenen Angaben " in einem einzigen und begrenzten Anklagepunkt" schuldig. Er betreffe die Verletzung des US-Kartellrechts bei der Preisbildung im Geschäft mit DRAM-Speicherchips (Dynamic Random Access Memory) zwischen dem 1. Juli 1999 und dem 15. Juni 2002. Für Infineon sei damit das im Übrigen weiter laufende branchenweite Ermittlungsverfahren beendet.

INFINEON STREBT EINIGUNG MIT ÜBRIGEN OEM-KUNDEN AN

Das von der Justiz vorgeworfene Fehlverhalten sei auf bestimmte Auftragshersteller-Kunden (Original Equipment Manufacturer/OEM) begrenzt gewesen. Infineon habe bereits Kontakt mit diesen Kunden und mit den meisten eine Einigung erzielt. Bei den übrigen Kunden rechnet Infineon mit einer baldigen Einigung. Infineon bieten Halbleiter- und Systemlösungen für die Automobil- und Industrieelektronik, für Anwendungen in der drahtgebundenen Kommunikation, sichere mobile Lösungen sowie Speicherbauelemente an. Mit weltweit rund 32.300 Mitarbeitern setzte Infineon im Geschäftsjahr 2002/03 (Ende September) 6,15 Milliarden Euro um./sbi/FX/she

[tockey1]

genau

[brada]

2 mio aktien in der ersten handelsstunde .

nicht schlecht

[brada]

o 10:41 ET Rambus: expect a court ruling during the day that will lead to
volatility -- BWS Financial (RMBS) 19.41 +0.31: --Update-- BWS Financial
expects Rambus (RMBS) to be volatile today, as firm expects a court ruling
during the day that will push the stock heavily in either direction
depending on the news. Firm continues to have a Hold rating on the stock.

aus yahooboard kopiert

[Intruder2003]

einsteigen !

[brada]

könnte heute nochmal einen schub nach oben geben


Rambus CEO to Open The NASDAQ Stock Market
Tuesday November 16, 10:30 am ET
Company to Host Annual Analyst Meeting in New York

(MARKET WIRE)--Nov 16, 2004 --
What:

Geoff Tate, Chief Executive Officer of Rambus, will preside over the Market Open.

Where:

NASDAQ MarketSite -- 4 Times Square -- 43rd & Broadway -- Broadcast Studio

When:

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. EST

Why:

The NASDAQ Stock Market is proud to welcome Rambus CEO Geoff Tate to the Market Open to kick off the Company`s annual Analyst Meeting in New York!

[brada]

THE REASON why Rambus` share price went on overdrive yesterday is because people think its case against Hynix is going its way.
Rambus (ticker: RMBS) started its session on NASDAQ yesterday at $19.85 and at close of play finished at $21.47.

See Rambus share price up $3 on day. That article was filed at 16:11 Greenwich Mean Time. Then, it was 8:11 AM in Dullsville, and we doubt said district judge had finished scoffing his Kelloggs` Frosties.

According to Dow Jones, the boost is helped by a ruling in its patent infringement by a district court in Dullsville, San Jose.

The judge may well issue a summary judgement in favour of Rambus and against Hynix. That will allow Rambus to collect oodles of royalties from the South Korean memory manufacturer, which is now run by a group of bankers.

Today, Rambus` CEO Geoff Tate is to open the session on NASDAQ, and no doubt he`s also hoping to see the shares rocket even higher.

But what`s puzzling us a little is that not long after NASDAQ opened yesterday, its shares were starting to soar. That`s hours before any San Jose judge wakes up. So what gives there then, Jim? µ

[mfierke]

[cell1]

Das war Insiderhandel einige wußten schon von der Hynix-Markman geisterte schon durchs Board. Das dritte Mal in 15 Monaten.1.FTC die Verzögerung kurz vorher wurden Puts gekauft (Calls getauscht) 2.FTC die Entscheidung Kurs schoss Wochen vorher nach oben ohne Nachrichten auf dem FTC-Papier wurde das Datum zurück datiert, fiel mehreren Leuten auf. Nachdem die Anklage gegen R fallen gelassen worden ist, ist der Chef der FTC zurückgetreten.
Der Chefankläger kam von einer Anwaltskanzlei die mit Micron zusammenarbeitet und ist nach der Anklage sofort zurückgegangen auf einen höheren Posten.

[brada]

meldung zwar etwas älter aber wieder aktuell.

Rambus schließt Lizenz-Vertrag mit Samsung

Der amerikanische Chip-Technologie-Entwickler Rambus Inc. hat mit Samsung einen neuen Lizenzkunden für seine Yellowstone-Technologie gefunden. Wie die beiden Unternehmen heute bekannt gaben, wird Samsung die Rambus-Technologie in seiner nächsten Chip-Generation einsetzen.

Mit der Yellowstone-Technologie will Rambus seinen Kunden die Produktion von schnelleren und günstigeren Speicherchips ermöglichen. Finanzielle Einzelheiten der Zusammenarbeit wurden nicht bekannt.

Quelle: finanzen.net

06.12.2004 - 09:23
Samsung investiert $24 Mrd. in Chip-Fabrik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(©BörseGo - http://www.boerse-go.de)

Südkoreas Samsung Electronics Co., der weltgrößte Speicherchiphersteller, wird rund US$24 Milliarden in den nächsten sechs Jahren in den Aufbau einer neuen Chipproduktionsstätte investieren. Der Investitionsplan wurde von Samsung Group Chairman Lee Kun-Hee anlässlich einer Feier zum 30 jährigen Bestehen der Samsung-Halbleiterfertigung bekannt gegeben. Bis 2010 will Samsung 200 Billionen Won im Halbleiterbereich umsetzen. Vorsorgliche Investitionen seien in der Halbleiterbranche besonders wichtig, so Kun-Hee.

[brada]

Neuester Hager-Update ist soeben gekommen:

Rambus Analyst Day: Summary Judgment in the Cards?

Rick Currin

It was a pretty eventful week for Rambus. The stock traded sharply higher on Tuesday as the claims construction decision from Judge Whyte boosted shares and led to speculation of a possible summary judgment in Rambus’ favor. Shares were about 20% higher on Tuesday but drifted during the later part of the week to close with a 10% gain over five days.

Rambus also opened NASDAQ trading before having their analyst day presentation. Already convinced of Rambus’ great technology and leadership in speeding up memory and chip to chip interfaces, investors and analysts familiar with Rambus were waiting to hear what Rambus had to say about the latest legal developments in California. After delivering the necessary information to those just getting acquainted, Rambus did deliver an update on the legal front. In addition to some new slides outlining Rambus’ business opportunities, insights from Rambus’ Senior Vice President and General Counsel John Danforth certainly were quite interesting.

Pardon the Poker Analogy

Having spent so much time studying the patents for this report, I took a much needed break to watch my alma mater play their first college basketball game. Unfortunately, it was not televised and I found myself instead watching poker on that sports channel. Just when poker became a sport I don’t know.

Now having never actually played Texas Hold ‘em, I can’t explain why I kept watching it. I suppose it was the result of having too many channels and not enough sense to change the program to something that took my mind off the high stakes game of patents and antitrust being played out in the DRAM industry. So pardon the analogies but the creative jargon of Texas Hold `em somehow has made its way into this report.

Rambus with Pocket Aces

Danforth was in a mood to tip his hand to analysts about the level of truth (or continued lack of it) Rambus has uncovered and is in his possession. The whole DRAM saga has boiled down to a disturbing mix of honorable players willing to pay Rambus for the advancements brought to DRAM, intertwined in silent allegiance with the dishonorable parties too cheap to pay for the innovative technologies. Danforth presented information that was aimed at debunking the whole ‘Rambus tricked JEDEC’ story. Danforth displayed a document from minutes of a JEDEC Council meeting which indicates that:

“Because JEDEC was moving slow on memory standards they have had to use the work of other groups, including Rambus, and standardize that work as their own.”

Danforth commenting on JEDEC Documents at Rambus analyst day

Clearly the ‘Rambus tricked JEDEC’ story has changed to ‘the infringers initially convinced the FTC to believe the lie of the Rambus ticked JEDEC story’.

Given one strategy to defeat RDRAM included the continuous refrain of “JEDEC is royalty (and patent) free while Rambus RDRAM needs a royalty”; I find myself thinking that Danforth was simply showing the analysts he had at least one pocket ace in what has become the ultimate game of DRAM patent infringement and antitrust poker. That document alone has serious implications for JEDEC members advancing in the marketplace that SDRAM and DDR were free from royalty. Thus, Rambus’ first ace is their own antitrust suit brought against infringers.

The antitrust charges against Rambus are all but dead at the FTC. Danforth also highlighted relevant findings from the FTC administrative law judge such as:

1665. The fact that the DRAM industry continues to use the four Rambus technologies in DDR2 when that standard was developed after Rambus’s issued patents and their claimed scope were well known in the industry, demonstrates that Rambus’s technologies were superior in cost performance terms even taking into account Rambus’s royalty rates. (Rapp, Tr. 9898-99).

Source FTC Initial Decision

Danforth thinks it unlikely the FTC is unlikely to side with parties that have already admitted to anti-competitive practices in the DRAM industry. We agree.

I suppose the poker analogy is surely lost on a few of you but the strength of Rambus; patent position was greatly enhanced by ‘the flop’ of Judge Whyte’s claim construction (Markman) decision. Having a positive read from the claims construction proceedings; we were already anticipating an ‘on balance’ good result from Judge Whyte as well as the possibility of summary judgment of infringement. Although there was no summary judgment, we were quite encouraged With Danforth’s comments about summary judgment potential.

“In some of the claim construction arguments that it lost this week Hynix had proposed claim constructions where it was their only defense to our motions for summary judgment on the issue of infringement…and we believe that they have now lost those defenses. So I will not predict to you timing or exactly when orders will come out, but if you read the papers and you line up what arguments they made with what issues they have now lost, one could conclude that there should be summary judgment of infringement on at least one or more patents. We only need one.

Of course there are other issues in any patent trail…there are validity issues and other defenses. But on the issue of infringement it appears there should be summary judgment on one or more patents now.”

John Danforth: Comments at Rambus Analyst Day

While Danforth’s other comments about the futility of antitrust litigation against Rambus offered a peek at one of Rambus’ pocket aces, his comments about summary judgment are perhaps much more significant in the near term.

Danforth’s views about Whyte’s Markman and the potential for summary judgment put a patent ace on the table to go along with the antitrust ace showing. With a pair of price fixer’s also flopped on the table, the odds Rambus having the best hand should be apparent to the infringers. Reasonable poker players would fold and settle but the infringer’s know they are 3 of a kind (Department of Justice amnesty notwithstanding) and have a shot at calling Rambus’ antitrust threat for a while at least. The summary judgment of infringement could make continuing the hand far more unlikely.

The necessary ‘four of a kind’ to beat Rambus’ pocket aces full house is not in the cards. We agree with Danforth that the sweeping nature of the FTC initial decision is unlikely to be reversed. What is more likely is that Rambus has enough incriminating documents coming from whoever keeps sending the single version the ‘3 of a kind infringers’ couldn’t seem to produce in triplicate. Indeed Rambus should be getting three versions of the documents but apparently the infringers have their own issues with document retention. The infringers may already know that their hand will never get better than three of a kind regardless how Payne deals in Virginia.

Rambus’ Other Pocket Ace

One of the lesser appreciated aspects of Judge Whyte’s decision is that Rambus also has another patent ace. That’s because some of the weaker points in claim definitions that could potentially expose Rambus to validity issues have already been addressed by Rambus in later patents claiming the same priority. I’ll come back to that later.

What about Whyte’s Markman?

Although Danforth’s comments are encouraging, the impact of Whyte’s Markman does pose threats to several of the patent claims Rambus is asserting against Hynix. But as Danforth commented:

“We only need one.”

The ‘block size information’ definition, for example, threatens claims in the 918, 120, 863, and 916 patents if Hynix can win the argument that burst length is not really an amount of burst length data, but merely a sort of ‘max burst’ setting.

The ‘2nd external clock’ definitions is likely to kill patent claims using that term just as happened in the Infineon trial. Our view is that the claims of the 263, 195, and 020 are likely the ones Danforth is most confident about for summary judgment.

Perhaps just as encouraging in the big picture is the fact that Rambus has continued to make ‘patent strengthening’ claims stemming from the patents in suit. In the claims of patents more recent than those asserted in the proceedings against Hynix or Infineon; some of the less than optimal claim constructions of Judge Whyte have already been dealt with by Rambus. In other words, Rambus has already fixed clumsily worded language that deals with the vagueness of memory device and the RDRAM inspired narrowness of first and second external clock.

What it means though is that, as of Whyte’s Markman, all the DRAM manufacturers can see clearly that Rambus’ later issued patents are a “no brainer” for covering SDRAM, DDR, and DDR2 with or without the Bajwa(1) prior art attempt. In other words, some of the patents Hynix might be found to infringe but that could be susceptible to prior art are already covered in patents issued later not susceptible to the same art. While we doubt the issue will ever need to go that far, Rambus’ strengthened patents correcting earlier claim wording are certainly an additional ace in the hole.

1. Bajwa: Hynix is attempting to assert that an Intel ptent, from the inventor ‘Bajwa’, for a memory controller unit (MCU), has all the limitations of what Rambus seeks to claim as integrated DRAM/controller patnets.

Although we will go through some of the pro and con implications of the Markman with respect to claims on which Rambus has moved for summary judgment of infringement, it is important to understand this point about later issued patents as far as the long term leverage Rambus has in licensing negotiations. So despite risking repetition, I will repeat it. Some of the clumsier claiming Rambus has by definition from Judge Whyte has already been “cleaned up” in later Rambus patents claiming the same priority date. So while Danforth already foresees an infringement ace if you will, he also knows Rambus has another one up its sleeve regardless of the immediate result with certain of the patent claims threatened by various prior art arguments.

Whyte’s Markman: The Good News, the Not So Bad News, and the Bad News

Rambus only needs one claim that will capture SDRAM and DDR but let’s start with the bad news first.

The Bad News

The Block Size Information Definition

Hynix argues that their burst length does not represent block size information. Hynix contends burst length in their product only specifies the maximum amount of data that can be transferred not ‘”information that specifies the total amount of data that is to be transferred…”

This sounds convincing at first blush but since the Hynix devices select a block of columns equal to the burst length when a read or write command is issued, Hynix appears to be less than forthcoming with their assertion. That is, while we appreciate what Hynix has argued persuasively to escape infringement using their definition, the argument appears to be shady.

Although Judge Whyte’s discussion of the block size term leads away from all the implications and limitations Rambus fears, Hynix did get the definition they wanted. Accepting Hynix’s rather limited and dubious interpretation of burst length however could allow Hynix to escape summary judgment of infringement on the 918, 120, 863, and 916 patents.

The block size information definition is also consistent with the previous definition of Judge Payne in Virginia. As with most things concerning Rambus and Judge Payne, that never really points to a good thing.

The Second External Clock Definition

This is another definition that killed several claims in the Virginia trail. Hynix argues that the second external clock must contain different timing information than the first external clock. Judge Whyte’s definition agrees.

Second external clock: “a periodic signal received by the memory device from an external source to provide second timing information that is different from the first external clock.”

This definition jeopardizes Rambus claims in the 214, 105, 365, and 152 patents. The Hynix clocks are complements and in this engineer’s view do carry the same timing information.

The Not So Bad News

The following terms were defined in a way somewhat different than what Rambus wanted. However we believe the definitions established work in favor of Rambus’ claims anyway. These terms are Synchronous memory device, precharge information and access time register.

Synchronous memory device is defined in a way broader than Rambus had hoped however. Because the definition is broad, Hynix hopes to expose it to prior art. A particular piece of prior art Hynix seeks to use is an Intel ‘Bajwa’ patent. This patent is for a memory controller unit MCU. The MCU is not however a DRAM with a memory controller unit included. Since the definition of synchronous memory device is broad it poses a potential problem with respect to the MCU. Though Rambus intends it to apply to a controller/DRAM, Hynix intends to show that synchronous memory device as now defined is broad enough to allow the Bajwa patent to serve as prior art because the Bajwa MCU also has ‘some memory on it’.

This is sort of a long shot for Hynix but Rambus certainly has contemplated eliminating the Bajwa/MCU loophole based on the clearer language of the later issued patents we mentioned earlier. The later issued claims more clearly require the additional presence of a DRAM.

We expect summary judgment on infringement can occur on the 263 although the validity challenge will be stronger than Rambus wants.

The Good News

The rest of the claims definitions favor Rambus. These include claims definitions the judge refused to even consider. Hynix wanted Judge Whyte to define device in such a way that would have reintroduced multiplexing requirements. The Judge saw through that and refused to even define device apart from how it is combined. (e.g. in synchronous memory device and integrated circuit device).

Rambus fared well on integrated circuit device, operation code, first external clock, access time register, delay time, value that is representative of an amount of time to transpire, value which is representative of a delay time, and value which is (or code being) representative (or indicative) of a (preprogrammed) number of clock cycles.

Combined with several other favorable definitions that Rambus received from the first appeal of the Virginia Markman, we believe Rambus is in a good summary judgment position not only on the 263 patent, but also on the 195 and 020 patents.

Hynix appears to grasp only at the straws of the Bajwa patent to challenge the validity of these patents. However they will also attempt to come after the 263 for obviousness based on what happened in Europe.

Back to the Full House- The Other Pocket Ace

Rambus has certainly worked to protect itself from any prior art of the Bajwa patent. Hynix relies quite heavily on the patent in the prior art argument. Though also introduced in Europe, Bajwa was not the downfall of the Rambus patent there.

Rambus lost the European patent based on a combination of patents that led to obviousness. A key determination in Europe was that what Rambus had invented was not a system but one chip. (This is the downfall of Bajwa that Hynix attempts to escape with the broad definitions.) It was the combination of different patents that was deemed obvious. An obviousness determination in the U.S. is a much more difficult proposition.

At any rate the obviousness argument can not likely go to a patent beyond the 263.

In addition, the potential loophole that Bajwa is for the purposes of prior art, has been addressed in Rambus’ later continuation patents. Although Rambus believes Bajwa is not capable of serving as prior art in the current patents, they have made steps to strengthen the patents to such an attack anyway.

Here is an example from a 2003 issued patent.

Memory device which samples data after an amount of time transpires

6,584,037

What is claimed is:

1. A method of operation of a synchronous memory device, wherein the memory device includes an array of dynamic random access memory cells, the method of operation of the memory device comprises:
receiving an external clock signal;
sampling a first operation code synchronously with respect to the external clock signal, wherein the first operation code specifies a write operation; and
sampling data after a number of clock cycles of the external clock signal transpire, wherein the data is sampled in response to the first operation code.

Compare this to the claim targeted by Bajwa in the 195 patent in suit.

11. A synchronous semiconductor memory device having at least one memory section including a plurality of memory cells, the memory device comprising:
clock receiver circuitry to receive an external clock signal;
at least one register to store a value which is representative of a delay time; and
wherein in response to a read request, the memory device outputs data after the delay time transpires and synchronously with respect to the external clock signal.

Here you see the Bajwa MCU clearly has been eliminated as prior art as it has no DRAM array to satisfy the limitation in the later issued patent. In the patent in suit, Hynix argues the MCU is a semiconductor memory device that has a memory section. That memory section could be just about anything one could argue. However without DRAM, Bajwa could not serve to even argue as a single piece of prior art to the later patent. We also doubt it will succeed in the current patents.

Now obviously Rambus does not want to have to assert the later patent when they can win the current suit and start the damages or licensing clock much sooner. However the point is the later patent has covered the potential Bajwa escape route already. It also makes clear that DDR2, which is not explicitly under suit in any litigation, is infringing. It’s really a pay me know or pay me a higher penalty rate later issue. The point being it’s already clear that even the dubious Bajwa could at best buy infringement time.

Rambus’ later patents tend to avoid the term second external clock unless specifically claiming clocking operations more narrowly in accordance with their novel clocking.

The ace in the hole patents may clear a path for Rambus to approach the industry more broadly on controller patents as well as DRAM. On the present course we would expect Hynix to appeal a court loss. However, even under appeal it would be apparent that the newer patent already covers the ground that Hynix could appeal with respect to prior art. This reality could lead to a broader based post trial settlement.

Rambus’ memory controller patents could allow Rambus to begin licensing a broad range of processor and logic chip producers. The list of potential licensees is akin to everybody but Intel as Intel already has a license. In our view, Whyte’s Markman may have already provided enough clarity for Rambus to address the industry at large on memory controllers as opposed to only the defiant holdouts of the DRAM cartel. This market is very large and is completely discounted by analysts. Rambus tried to highlight this large controller market potential in the analyst day presentation.

Time to Sign New Licensees

Rambus has licensees that will need a new license in 2005. While unresolved litigation serves to constrain Rambus’ leverage in these new license deals, the strength of the newer patents in light of Whyte’s Markman actually can bolster Rambus’ leverage. Potential DRAM licensees can easily see that the hopeful loopholes of Bajwa have been closed and that Rambus patent coverage is very strong. Of course any summary judgment in the Hynix case covering SDRAM and DDR will likely supply licensing leverage as well.

Although Danforth certainly echoed our cautionary tone on what to expect from Judge Payne in Virginia, we believe a positive result in California could open the door to resolving licensing issues in a more global way. Judge Whyte does not appear to have Payne’s leaps of logic to allow irrelevant spoliation issues to cloud reality. In addition, having bifurcated the trial, the infringement results will be decided ahead of issues of equity associated with enforcing the patents. Whyte has also asked Hynix to show what nexus exists between their spoliation assertion and the requirements of their defense.

In reality, the missing documents now appearing point to the fact that JEDEC members were well aware of Rambus patent risk. In fact, they took the risk out of the necessity of being so far behind Rambus’ approach. They chose to incorporate Rambus IP to try and catch up to Rambus RDRAM solution that was already winning over Intel. So while the infringing price fixer’s know they are “three of a kind”, they ultimately have little chance against what is already an aces over price fixer’s full house.

What about the Stock?

Despite the market reaction to the Markman (or dare I say Markman leak and subsequent Markman release), Rambus should get a nice boost from an actual summary judgment ruling. That boost could evaporate, in part or in full, if the opposing party Infineon continues to rely on Judge Payne for short term cover. If it were truly poker Rambus would go “all in” letting Infineon know that such a course will ultimately result in severe ‘litigate and lose licensing terms remorse’ as seemingly endorsed by the FTC Administrative Law Judge.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle in resolving the litigation is the card dealer Payne in the Virginia casino. Unfortunately the gaming commission known as the CAFC has allowed him to continue dealing and will rely on their appellate path authority to correct any misdeals.

At any rate, with what looks like a very strong position both technically and legally we remain confident in the long term outlook. In addition knowing the upside potential of XDR, PCIExpress, and the larger implications of the association with the Sony CELL processor, we are confident with our own read of this stock regardless of Judge Payne. Add the fact that having pled guilty to price fixing, the infringing parties are unlikely to want to face Rambus antitrust charges, and we believe this saga could end sooner than later.

We also believe the market completely discounts Rambus huge royalty potential from the controller market. Although that market has been difficult to approach with all the litigation issues already in the air, the controller market has the potential of being the final ace that takes Rambus to an extremely high level. The possibility of succeeding on the controller market is virtually unaccounted for by analysts.

Obviously we do hope that a resolution comes before heading back to Virginia, but we view the current potential for summary judgment a significant catalyst to accelerate a global solution.

By the way, I promise to never watch poker on TV again and hope you appreciate it took some extra time to assess the info for this week’s update. If you have time I recommend you listen to the Rambus analyst day presentation. It is archived on the Rambus website in the investor relations section.

We are not lawyers and do not represent that these are the legal opinions of patent attorneys.

[brada]

Die Infineon Technologies AG will einem Bericht des "Handelsblatt" zufolge im Patentstreit mit dem US-Mitbewerber Rambus Inc. eine außergerichtliche Einigung anstreben. Dies berichtet die Zeitung am Mittwoch.

Der Zeitung zufolge würden die beiden Firmen in direktem Kontakt stehen. Infineon und Rambus streiten sich bereits seit Jahren um Lizenzrechte für DRAM-Speicherchips. Rambus will hierbei Patentrechte für eine Chiptechnik geltend machen und verlangt vom Münchner Konzern und anderen Mitbewerbern Lizenzgebühren in Milliardenhöhe.

Infineon hat dennoch zusammen mit Hynix bei der EU-Kommission eine Beschwerde gegen Rambus eingereicht. Dies bestätigte demnach eine Sprecherin von EU- Wettbewerbskommissar Mario Monti gegenüber dem "Handelsblatt". Infineon wirft Rambus vor, seine Stellung als exklusiver Lieferant eines weltweit führenden Technologiestandards zu missbrauchen, um von anderen Chip- Produzenten hohe Lizenzgebühren zu fordern.

[jethor tull]

Brada,

bist du sicher, daß dies eine neue Nachricht ist? Vor einiger Zeit ging so ein Gerücht schon mal um.

jethor

[brada]

artikel ist schon etwas älter..habe orginal artikel leider nicht mehr aber hier der link
http://www.handelsblatt.de/pshb/fn/relhbi/sfn/buildhbi/struc…
Handelsblatt Nr. 082 vom 28.04.04 Seite 20
Preis: 1,80 EUR (144 Zeilen)
Infineon geht auf Wettbewerber zu Konzern sucht außergerichtliche Lösung im Lizenzstreit mit US-Unternehmen Rambus


[...]MICHAEL SCHEERER, JOACHIM HOFER HANDELSBLATT, 28.4.2004 BRÜSSEL/MÜNCHEN.[...][...] Die Münchner Infineon Technologies AG strebt eine außergerichtliche Einigung im Streit mit dem US-Wettbewerber Rambus an.[...][...]Infineon und Rambus liefern sich in Europa und den USA seit Jahren eine heftige Auseinandersetzung um Lizenzrechte für die Herstellung von Speicherchips, so genannte Drams. [...][...]Rambus macht Patentrechte für eine Chiptechnik geltend und verlangt von Infineon und anderen Herstellern Lizenzgebühren in Milliardenhöhe.[...][...]Gemeinsam mit dem südkoreanischen Chiphersteller Hynix haben die Deutschen gegen Rambus eine Beschwerde bei der EU-Kommission eingereicht.[...]

[Grappino]

Na, diese Nachricht hat aber einen ziemlich langen Bart.
April zzzzzz...

[brada]

der bart ist zwar lang aber es ist doch auch eine schuldbekenntnis ????

[jethor tull]

Das erkläre doch mal unserem gemeinsamen Freund Richter Payne!

jethor

[brada]

nvidia sony cell ps3 , nvidia neuer lizenznehmer??

[jethor tull]

Brada!!!

Von wem?Von Sony?

jethor

[jethor tull]

Brada,

hast du das gemeint?











Press Release Source: NVIDIA Corporation


Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and NVIDIA Announce Joint GPU Development for SCEI`s Next-Generation Computer Entertainment System
Tuesday December 7, 3:11 am ET


TOKYO and SANTA CLARA, Calif., Dec. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI) and NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA - News) today announced that the companies have been collaborating on bringing advanced graphics technology and computer entertainment technology to SCEI`s highly anticipated next-generation computer entertainment system. Both companies are jointly developing a custom graphics processing unit (GPU) incorporating NVIDIA`s next-generation GeForce(TM) and SCEI`s system solutions for next-generation computer entertainment systems featuring the Cell* processor.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20020613/NVDALOGO http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20041207/SFTU096 )
This collaboration is made under a broad, multi-year, royalty-bearing agreement. The powerful custom GPU will be the graphics and image processing foundation for a broad range of applications from computer entertainment to broadband applications. The agreement will encompass future Sony digital consumer electronics products.

"In the future, the experience of computer entertainment systems and broadband-ready PCs will be fused together to generate and transfer multi-streams of rich content simultaneously. In this sense, we have found the best way to integrate the state-of-the-art technologies from NVIDIA and SCEI," said Ken Kutaragi, executive deputy president and COO, Sony Corporation, and president and Group CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. "Our collaboration includes not only the chip development but also a variety of graphics development tools and middleware, essential for efficient content creation."

"We are thrilled to partner with Sony Computer Entertainment to build what will certainly be one of the most important computer entertainment and digital media platforms of the twenty-first century," added Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO, NVIDIA. "Over the past two years NVIDIA has worked closely with Sony Computer Entertainment on their next-generation computer entertainment system. In parallel, we have been designing our next-generation GeForce GPU. The combination of the revolutionary Cell processor and NVIDIA`s graphics technologies will enable the creation of breathtaking imagery that will surprise and captivate consumers."

The custom GPU will be manufactured at Sony Group`s Nagasaki Fab2 as well as OTSS (joint fabrication facility of Toshiba and Sony).

Note:

"Cell" is the code-name for an advanced microprocessor under development by IBM, Toshiba and Sony Group.
About Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.

Recognized as the global leader and company responsible for the progression of consumer-based computer entertainment, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI) manufacturers, distributes and markets the PlayStation® game console and PlayStation®2 computer entertainment system. PlayStation has revolutionized home entertainment by introducing advanced 3D graphic processing, and PlayStation 2 further enhances the PlayStation legacy as the core of home networked entertainment. SCEI, along with its subsidiary divisions Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd., and Sony Computer Entertainment Korea Inc. develops, publishes, markets and distributes software, and manages the third party licensing programs for these two platforms in the respective markets worldwide. Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. is an independent business unit of the Sony Group.

About NVIDIA

NVIDIA Corporation is a worldwide leader in graphics and digital media processors. The Company`s products enhance the end-user experience on consumer and professional computing devices. NVIDIA graphics processing units (GPUs), media and communications processors (MCPs), and wireless media processors (WMPs) have broad market reach and are incorporated into a variety of platforms, including consumer and enterprise PCs, notebooks, workstations, PDAs, mobile phones, and video game consoles. NVIDIA is headquartered in Santa Clara, California and employs more than 2,000 people worldwide. For more information, visit the Company`s Web site at www.nvidia.com.

Certain statements in this press release including, but not limited to, statements as to the development of the custom GPU, the benefits of the collaboration, the benefits, uses, and capabilities of the custom GPU and computer entertainment systems featuring the Cell processor, the fusion of computer entertainment systems and broadband systems, the agreement between the parties, and the manufacture of the custom GPU are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause results to be materially different than expectations. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to whether SCEI and NVIDIA continue the collaboration, whether SCEI continues to use the NVIDIA custom GPU as the foundation for a broad range of its applications, market acceptance of SCEI`s next-generation computer entertainment system,, market acceptance of new products and technology, delays in ramping new products into production, manufacturing delays and defects, incompatibility of technologies, reliance on third-party manufacturers, general industry trends including cyclical trends in the semiconductor market, delays in integration of our products, the impact of competitive products and pricing alternatives, and other risks detailed from time to time in the NVIDIA reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission including its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 24, 2004. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. NVIDIA disclaims any obligation to update these forward-looking statements.

NOTE: All company and/or product names may be trade names, trademarks and/or registered trademarks of the respective owners with which they are associated. Features, pricing, availability, and specifications are subject to change without notice.



jethor

[brada]

Rambus Can Pursue Hynix Patent Infringement Case, Judge Rules
January 4, 2005, 20:04 EST -- Rambus Inc., a designer of high-speed memory chips, can pursue patent-infringement claims against Hynix Semiconductor Inc., a U.S. judge ruled.