Electronic news skinny on confidential documents
<< From a Rambus business plan dated June 12, 1992: Finally, we believe that Sync DRAMs infringe on some claims in our filed patents; and that there are additional claims we can file for our patents that cover features of Sync DRAMs. Then we will be in a position to request patent licensing (fees and royalties) from any manufacturer of Sync DRAMs. Our action plan is to determine the exact claims and file the additional claims by the end of Q3/92. Then to advise Sync DRAM manufacturers in Q4/92. >>
<< DRAM makers say they were not informed of Rambus? plans until after 1997. >>
Heres Rambus take on the subject.
Q]"It is irresponsible and misleading to view any document out of context and without seeing all the evidence." It also expressses confidence that it will win in court. ®[/i] >>
I'm really starting to hate pure IP companies now.
<< From a Rambus business plan dated June 12, 1992: Finally, we believe that Sync DRAMs infringe on some claims in our filed patents; and that there are additional claims we can file for our patents that cover features of Sync DRAMs. Then we will be in a position to request patent licensing (fees and royalties) from any manufacturer of Sync DRAMs. Our action plan is to determine the exact claims and file the additional claims by the end of Q3/92. Then to advise Sync DRAM manufacturers in Q4/92. >>
<< DRAM makers say they were not informed of Rambus? plans until after 1997. >>
Heres Rambus take on the subject.
Q]"It is irresponsible and misleading to view any document out of context and without seeing all the evidence." It also expressses confidence that it will win in court. ®[/i] >>
I'm really starting to hate pure IP companies now.