SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: hdl8/29/2011 12:30:37 PM
   of 93597
 
rmbs is winning AT trial. Yet, stock has been down and trial latrgely ignored. now, bloomberg posts a negative article re rmbs AT trial and stock is up a bit.

you have word from me rmbs is winning and will get judgment worth more than its market cap.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: hdl who wrote (93400)8/30/2011 12:52:17 AM
From: Jeffry K. Smith
   of 93597
 
"rmbs is winning AT trial. Yet, stock has been down and trial latrgely ignored. now, bloomberg posts a negative article re rmbs AT trial and stock is up a bit.

you have word from me rmbs is winning and will get judgment worth more than its market cap."

And you base this on what? Are you at the trial?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Jeffry K. Smith who wrote (93401)8/30/2011 5:11:54 AM
From: hdl
   of 93597
 
i have info re what is happening at the trial.

liability is clear. question is the damages. mu and hynix are arguing rdram would have failed even if they hadn't price fixed to kill it. bloomberg cites testimony of two low level intc employees, not that of high level employee and slides and letters of heads of intc and intc policy. intc switched to ddr from rdram because mu, hynix and others would not support rdram. they didn't want to pay rmbs royalties. they couldn't compete with samsung re rdram.

the trial will be over in one month. there will be a huge verdict for rmbs.

rmbs and mu trade as if the AT litigation didn't exist. they go up and down with semi sector. mu and rmbs were up yesterday. they are down since start of the trial.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: hdl who wrote (93402)8/31/2011 12:26:24 AM
From: Jeffry K. Smith
   of 93597
 
Have you followed your expectation of the trial result with large purchases of RMBS stock or options?

Where do you get your information from re: the trial?

Thank you.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Jeffry K. Smith who wrote (93403)8/31/2011 3:58:43 AM
From: hdl
   of 93597
 
yes.

there is much on investor village.

the media has a very negative slant against rmbs. it covered opening statements and just covered some testimony of an intc engineer. it ignores guilty pleas, devastating e-mails, and other documents and testimony.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: hdl who wrote (93404)8/31/2011 11:38:39 AM
From: Jeffry K. Smith
   of 93597
 
Thank you.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: hdl who wrote (93404)9/1/2011 2:28:03 AM
From: Don Green
   of 93597
 
the media has a very negative slant against rmbs.


there is much on investor village.....but with a positive and extremely bias slant..

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Don Green9/6/2011 5:12:08 PM
   of 93597
 
Is Rambus Hiding Weakness?By Rex Moore | s
September 6, 2011


Rambus (Nasdaq: RMBS ) carries $309.3 million of goodwill and other intangibles on its balance sheet. Sometimes goodwill, especially when it's excessive, can foreshadow problems down the road. Could this be the case with Rambus?

Before we answer that, let's look at what could go wrong.

AOL blows up
In early 2002, AOL Time Warner was trading for $66.27 per share.

It had $209 billion of assets on its balance sheet, and $128 billion of that was in the form of goodwill and other intangible assets. Goodwill is simply the difference between the price paid for a company during an acquisition and the net assets of the acquired company. The $128 billion of goodwill in this case was created when AOL and Time Warner merged in 2000.

The problem with inflating your net assets with goodwill is that it can -- being intangible after all -- go away if the acquisition or merger doesn't create the amount of value that was expected. That's what happened in AOL Time Warner's case. It had to write off most of the goodwill over the next few months, and one year later that line item had shrunk to $37 billion. Investors punished the stock along the way, sending it down to $27.04 -- or nearly a 60% loss.

In his fine book It's Earnings That Count, Hewitt Heiserman explains the AOL situation and how two simple metrics can help minimize your risk of owning a company that may blow up like this. Let's see how Rambus holds up using his two metrics.

Intangible assets ratio
This ratio shows us the percentage of total assets made up by goodwill and other intangibles. Heiserman says he views anything over 20% as worrisome, "because management might be overpaying for the acquisition or acquisitions that gave rise to the goodwill."

Rambus has an intangible assets ratio of 41%.

This is well above Heiserman's threshold, and you should keep a close eye on just how the company is fueling its growth. It's also useful to compare it to tangible book value, which I explain below.

Tangible book value
Tangible book value is simply what remains after subtracting goodwill and other intangibles from shareholders' equity (also known as book value). If this is not a positive value, Heiserman advises you to run away because such companies may "lack the balance sheet muscle to protect themselves in a recession or from better-financed competitors."

Rambus' tangible book value is $117.3 million, so no yellow flags here.

By the way, I asked Heiserman about the tendency for some large-cap blue chips -- names like Procter & Gamble, IBM, and Altria -- to have a high intangible assets ratio and negative tangible book value. He says this can be OK, provided the company has (1) modest or no net debt, (2) persistent and rising levels of free cash flow, and (3) stock buybacks at a discount to intrinsic value.

Foolish bottom line
To recap, here are Rambus' numbers, as well as a bonus look at a few other companies in its industry. I've included companies that Rambus has either tussled with, or share an emphasis on IP to derive sales:

Company

Intangible Assets Ratio

Tangible Book Value (millions)

Rambus41%$117Micron Technology (Nasdaq: MU )3%$8,159NVIDIA (Nasdaq: NVDA )20%$2,738ARM Holdings (Nasdaq: ARMH )47%$681Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.

If you own Rambus, or any other company that fails one of these checks, make sure you understand the business model and management's objectives. You can never base an entire investment thesis on one or two metrics, but there is a yellow flag here. I'll help you keep a close eye on these ratios over the next few quarters by updating them soon after each earnings report.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Don Green9/12/2011 3:51:06 PM
   of 93597
 
USPTO decides two Rambus patents are invalid

After it won lawsuits with them
By Lawrence Latif
Mon Sep 12 2011, 17:07

PATENT BULLY Rambus has suffered a blow in its never ending battle against hardware designers as the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has declared two of its patents invalid.

Rambus uses its patent portfolio to go after other chip designers including Intel and Nvidia, along with memory makers. But now the USPTO has declared that two patents Rambus wielded to win lawsuits against Nvidia and HP are invalid.

Previously, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that Nvidia, HP and other firms were infringing two Barth I patents owned by Rambus. This led to Nvidia settling with Rambus.

While the USPTO declaration sounds like Nvidia and HP could be within a shout of getting some of their money back, if Rambus appeals the rejection in the US Count of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the patents will remain valid until the appeal is decided. In a statement to Reuters, Rambus said, "We are confident in the validity of our patents and are exploring our next steps to seek reversal of these decisions."

A decision on Rambus' third Barth I patent is expected within months. These patents were used by Rambus to accuse Broadcom, ST Microelectronics and Mediatek of infringement in an ITC complaint it filed nine months ago.

Rambus is well known for its aggressive litigation and is currently in a $4bn fight against DRAM manufacturers Hynix and Micron. The news that a couple of its patents have been declared invalid will please many in the industry who view Rambus as little more than a patent troll.

While the USPTO might have passed its judgement, it is unlikely that Rambus will let its two patents go without a fight. After all it is one of the few technology companies that has come out on top in the courtroom more than most. µ

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Don Green9/20/2011 1:55:14 AM
   of 93597
 
Hynix Lawyer Says Rambus ‘Squandered' Memory Chip Opportunity
Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A lawyer for Hynix Semiconductor Inc. told a jury that Rambus Inc.'s flawed technology and poor business decisions, rather than collusion by rivals, hobbled its chances of making its memory chip the industry standard.

In his closing argument yesterday at a state court trial in San Francisco that began in June, Hynix lawyer Ken Nissly denied that the world's second-largest maker of computer memory conspired to drive chips designed by Rambus out of the market.

Nissly showed jurors a timeline titled “Rambus Choices Doomed Intel Relationship” to introduce his argument that Rambus “had the best support for innovation they could possibly have” in its 1996 contract to develop its own version of dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, with Santa Clara, California-based Intel Corp., the world's largest chipmaker.

Rambus “squandered that advantage such that Intel decided by the end of 1999 that it had made a mistake, that it was going to change its road map,” Nissly said.

Rambus contends that Ichon, South Korea-based Hynix and Boise, Idaho-based Micron Technology Inc. colluded to lower the prices of their own memory chips and deserted their commitment to produce Rambus-designed DRAM, or RDRAM, relegating it to a niche role. Micron's lawyer is scheduled to give a closing argument today after Nissly finishes.

Rambus, which doesn't manufacture the chips it designs, argued it would have earned $3.95 billion in royalties without the alleged conspiracy. Under California law, a jury finding of damages in that amount would be automatically tripled to $11.9 billion.

‘Rigged the Race'

Hynix and Micron “cheated” and “rigged the race,” Sean Eskovitz, a lawyer for Rambus, said yesterday in his closing argument. The two chip manufacturers first fixed their prices below market value and “when they thought they had pushed RDRAM off to the side, they jacked up the prices.”

“Why did they do this? Power and money,” Eskovitz said. “They knew RDRAM was a threat. They knew they needed to shoot it over and over and over again,” and “they used every possible tactic available to them.”

The chip manufacturers, in denying the claims, are relying in part on testimony from managers at Intel, which in the 1990s selected RDRAM as a solution to a computer-memory bottleneck. Intel managers said the collaboration ultimately failed because RDRAM was flawed and because of a contract provision potentially allowing Rambus to block Intel from shipping processors relying on the chip designer's technology if certain conditions requiring Intel to promote RDRAM weren't met.

Price Drop

Eskovitz showed jurors a chart depicting the price of RDRAM dropping in the summer of 2000, after its introduction a year earlier. He highlighted video testimony and e-mails between executives and sales people at Micron and Hynix that he said demonstrate how the chip manufacturers intensified their collusion to stall production of RDRAM.

The collusion drove RDRAM prices high enough to cause Intel to alter its memory “road map” to include Double Data Rate chips made by Hynix and Micron, and blocked RDRAM from becoming an industry standard, Eskovitz said.

“Intel wanted RDRAM to succeed, Intel picked RDRAM because it was the superior technology,” Eskovitz told jurors. William Swope, a former Intel manager, testified “Intel's job was to have superior performance,” Eskovitz said.

Rambus played video-taped testimony from Mike Sadler, vice president of corporate development at Micron, who said he ceased e-mail communications about chip pricing in 2002 because the company received a U.S. Department of Justice subpoena as part of a price-fixing investigation.

Guilty Pleas

Eskovitz reminded jurors of Judge James McBride's instructions that they may consider the fact that Hynix, in 2005, and some of its employees, pleaded guilty to U.S. charges of fixing prices of some chips. Micron avoided prosecution in the price-fixing probe by cooperating with the government.

Nissly began his closing arguments by claiming that Eskovitz gave jurors dates and events “wadded up and thrown together.”

He said Eskovitz avoided addressing the central question: Did Micron or Hynix conspire to fix RDRAM prices high and DDR prices low, or restrict RDRAM output in order to prevent RDRAM from becoming the standard for computer memory?

The case is Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc., 04-0431105, California Superior Court (San Francisco).

--Editors: Peter Blumberg, Mary Romano

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.