Technology StocksRambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Don Green1/26/2012 7:17:11 PM
   of 93602
Rambus posts 4Q loss as revenue falls

(AP) SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Technology licensing company Rambus Inc. said Thursday that it posted a fourth-quarter loss, reversing a profit from a year ago, as research and marketing costs rose while revenue fell.

The net loss in the three months that ended Dec. 31 came to $28.7 million, or 26 cents per share. A year earlier, it earned $33.1 million, or 29 cents per share.

Excluding one-time items like the cost of restating stock-based compensation and related legal expenses, adjusted earnings came to 8 cents per share, compared with adjusted earnings of 28 cents per share in 2010's fourth quarter.

Revenue fell 8 percent to $83.4 million from $90.9 million a year ago.

Shares fell 62 cents, or 7 percent, to $8.30 in after-hours trading, after ending regular trading down 28 cents, or 3 percent, at $8.92.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Don Green who wrote (93492)1/28/2012 10:27:33 AM
From: hdl
   of 93602
you failed to post re decision invalidating barth patents. rmbs must appeal to cafc.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: hdl who wrote (93493)1/29/2012 8:01:35 PM
From: Don Green
   of 93602

Most Important Rambus Patent Invalidated; Company Share Price Craters
Sunday, January 29, 2012 - by Joel Hruska

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has released a ruling that invalidates the third of three patents Rambus used to intimidate Nvidia into settling with it early last year. The decision is a further blow to Rambus' ambitions; the company has sued a wide range of companies, including HP, Broadcom, MediaTek, and STMicroelectronics alleging that they infringed on the three patents.

The 6,591,353 patent, "Protocol for Communication with Dynamic Memory," was overturned on the basis of prior art. It makes numerous references to a 'memory device'; a fact Nvidia was able to exploit. The patent examiner reported that "As NVIDIA persuasively explains, Hayes describes time-multiplexed clock data transfers between a master and slave during different clock cycles, and Bennett teaches benefits to providing a synchronized interface in a memory device using an external clock."

In other words, Bennett (the patent Nvidia declared constituted prior art) contained information that made the Hayes patent obvious. The question of "obviousness" is a key component of patent law; the USPTO evaluates the issue using what's known as the Teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test. In this case, the patent office found that information contained within the original Bennett patent made the Hayes patent obvious.

This decision is the latest blow to Rambus' ambitions; the company's $4 billion lawsuit against Hynix and Micron was tossed out of court in November. That decision wiped out nearly 2/3 of the company's value; this further announcement has sent shares plunging once again.

Rambus, of course, has a well-deserved reputation not as a patent troll, but as the patent troll; the company has prioritized litigation as a means of earning income for more than a decade. A quick check of the company's stock price shows how well that's worked for them long-term.

Not only has the company's share price fluctuated and dipped precisely in time with the outcome of its patent lawsuits, its 10-year share price is essentially flat ($7.46 in 2002, $7.97 at close of market on Friday). Granted, Rambus is scarcely the only company whose shares are worth less now than they were 10 years ago -- it shares that distinction with Microsoft, to name one example. The difference, however, is that Microsoft has spent the last ten years designing new products and attempting to move into new markets. Rambus, in contrast, has generally relied on licensing agreements -- negotiated either politely, or from the barrel of a gun.

The company has made some effort to create new product strategies, such as partnering with GE around LED lighting, but this latest decision undermines a great deal of the company's lawsuits and may invalidate the agreements it has signed with companies like Nvidia and Broadcom. After spending a decade suing virtually everyone, Rambus may have real problems finding partners for itself in its traditional markets.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Don Green who wrote (93494)1/30/2012 2:03:19 AM
From: Bilow
   of 93602
Hi Don Green; Oh come on now, I wouldn't call that a "crater".



Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Bilow who wrote (93495)1/30/2012 8:38:58 AM
From: bacchus_ii
   of 93602
As one of your 94 peoples having you on the peoplemarks list may I say we fell neglected.

Strike on Iran will start when?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Don Green1/30/2012 9:51:41 AM
   of 93602
Rambus patent declared invalid by US
Another setback after losing lawsuit on Novermber 16

RMBS 7.36

One of three patents by a technology patents, which has been used by firm Rambus against its rivals for infringement cases, has been invalidated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The "Protocol for Communication with Dynamic Memory" patent, numbered 6,591,353 was not deemed genuine as it made references to a'memory device.

The lawsuits were decided in Rambus' favour in July of 2010.

Again in early 2011, Rambus filed a new ITC complaint accusing a number of companies with infringement of up to six patents.

The three patents are collectively known as the Barth patents, and the one in question talks about time-multiplexed slave-master data transfers during different clock cycles.

The settlements earned Rambus millions of dollars in terms of settlement fees.

Westerman, Hattori, Daniels and Adrian law expert Scott Daniels told the Reuters that there was no way Rambus could appeal against the USPTO stand, as it would be appealed back to the examiner who would not most likely disagree against the members of the appeals board.

In a November 16 court ruling, Rambus lost $4bn lawsuit against Micron Technology and Hynix Semiconductor.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Don Green who wrote (93497)1/30/2012 10:03:54 AM
From: hdl
   of 93602
zacks is positive re rmbs

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bilow who wrote (92580)1/30/2012 3:57:45 PM
From: Bilow
3 Recommendations   of 93602
Hi all; To repeat something I wrote from 2006:

"I would prefer that Rambus be beaten by having their patents trimmed back to their original claims -- as happened in Europe. Rambus did not invent any of the ideas they claim on JEDEC memory, not a single one. All those ideas long predate Rambus. What Rambus did was figure out how to get the incompetent US patent office to grant them patents on something that they did not invent.

It is a national disgrace that this sort of thing happens here in two ways. The first problem is that people can patent specific ideas that are obvious to engineers aware of the general principles. After the invention of PLLs, it was obvious to all IC engineers that they could be used in ICs of all types, it was just a matter of the usual engineering trade-offs. The true invention was the PLL, not its obvious applications.

The second problem, which is how Rambus lost their European patents, is that the US allows companies to increase the claim territory of their patents secretly, years after the original filing, but retaining the original filing date. If Rambus had done this, and not joined JEDEC, the FTC would have no case against them. But "submarine" patents are wrong, and they were not intended by the founders of this country. They are just ways for lawyers to make money off the system which is why the judges protect them.

US Patents have been around for hundreds of years. Back in the old days, the lifetime of a patent was strictly limited. Given the current condition, where technology becomes obsolete much more quickly than in 1800, patents should have even shorter lifetimes. Instead, the trend has been to lengthen the lives of patents.

The founders of this country would be outraged to know that Rambus could file a patent in 1982 and be trying to collect royalties on it through 2015 (or whenever). That's simply outrageous. It's like it's a return to the definitions of "patent" during the Middle Ages, where it was a grant from the King that allowed a certain group of people to carry on business (that they did not invent) forever, with no competition."

I find the gutting of the Rambus patents to be good news about our patent system. Lawyers should leave engineering alone. And it's nice to see that an American jury can recognize when a foreign company is on the right side of a very complicated patent disagreement.

-- Carl

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: hdl who wrote (93402)1/30/2012 7:36:11 PM
From: Bilow
2 Recommendations   of 93602
Re: "RMBS is winning AT trial. Yet, stock has been down and trial largely 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."


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."


Your logic is faulty. Neither Hynix nor Micron had a reason to not make RDRAM. If RDRAM had been the wave of the future and had become popular, the royalties would be approximately equal for the various companies that made it. Hynix and Micron would pay the same percentage as everyone else. (And for Rambus to pursue any other policy would have been that much more reason for them to fail.) The memory makers would simply pass this cost on to their customers, with an appropriate mark-up. Rambus would have improved the bottom lines of Hynix and Micron.

Instead, the two companies didn't go heavily into the RDRAM market because thousands of line-level engineers like me told them that we would avoid designing RDRAM into our products. They didn't make the memory because it was unpopular with the real users, the design engineers. Hynix and Micron didn't get into the RDRAM market because they didn't want to lose money.

You note that only low level Intel employees were testifying. This is because high level Intel employees do not have the slightest idea what is going on in things like this. Rambus was an engineering disaster, it was low level employees who understood what happened. Hell, the high level Intel management were the ones who forced the agreement onto their design engineers -- it was Intel management that believed the lies told by Rambus about their product, not the low level engineers.

CEOs and high corporate management cannot know enough technical details to make technical decisions. They have to rely on the opinions of their employees. Get the Intel CEO to testify? He'd simply point out that he wasn't a memory designer and didn't have the slightest idea what went wrong. You might as well ask Obama to testify why your local postman seems to take a 20 minute break in the middle of delivering the mail at a particular address. Obama don't know. Can't know. Neither can Intel management. A big company like Intel has a lot more going around than some dinky little memory interface. Management's got all sorts of problems on their minds, like should they be building a new factory in Greece? What's the price of silicon going to go? Which art company should be hired to design a new logo? Etc.

If you go back through this thread, you can find a couple hundred posts I made noting these above facts. I've been saying the same thing for many years. This is unlike the Rambus faithful who have to rewrite their fairy tale every couple years (as markets and lawsuits turn against them).

The high price of RDRAM was because only a few companies made it, and it was expensive for them to make. The interface was badly designed; it was a difficult design and manufacturing challenge both for the memory (and so higher priced memory) and the controller. This led to a major disaster for Intel; the worst product recall in Intel's history (the 820 motherboard). DDR SDRAM never created any such mess.

-- Carl

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bilow who wrote (93499)2/1/2012 11:15:50 AM
From: sylvester80
1 Recommendation   of 93602
In a way, you also just describe most of Apple's patents... or how I like to call them... crApple

Apple did not invent any of the ideas they claim on smartphones & tablets, not a single one. All those ideas long predate Apple. What Apple did was figure out how to get the incompetent US patent office to grant them patents on something that they did not invent.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.