|
|
|
|
||
historical perspectiveI first invested in Rambus in July, 1997 two months after its IPO. The debate about the stock then was this: A). Rambus's business plan was the wave of the future: invent cutting edge technology and license the I.P. or B). Stay far away from this company's stock and stocks like it, whereby those companies don't have a product of their own, they don't make anything, and will never succeed. My conclusion based on 16 years of owning the stock is that the U.S. Court system decided that it agreed with B., and collectively would never give the benefit of the doubt to an American Company that didn't have a product and was in litigation with companies that did have products. Looking ahead, current management has apparently chosen a strategy of: We cannot protect our patents in the current legal climate and so a pure licensing game plan will not succeed. Therefore our future lies in designing technology always in conjunction with a partner (buyer), and further cultivating our own products (LED). John Danforth won't be happy because he bet on A above. But anyone looking at reality must understand that current Rambus management had no choice but to cut bait with its original flawed business plan. |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
708247 | Re: historical perspective | toasty54 | 9 | 6/12/2013 4:54:57 PM |
708256 | Re: historical perspective -- not a flawed business plan, it was a gamed legal system. | cBus | 7 | 6/12/2013 8:09:18 PM |
708269 | Re: historical perspective | mantrapfisherman | 3 | 6/12/2013 10:26:41 PM |
708284 | Re: historical perspective (the game of trolls) | StevesPlac | 1 | 6/13/2013 5:11:08 AM |