Media: RAMBUS income slides despite revenue gains

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/

Excerpt:

"Rambus' income slid during Q4 FY2004, despite a double-figure jump in
year-on-year revenue, the memory technology developer said last night.

Net income for the three months to 31 December 2004 totalled $6.5m (six
cents a share), down 24.4 per cent on the $8.6m (eight cents a share)
the company reported this time last year and 37.5 per cent lower than
the $10.4m (ten cents a share) it made in Q3 FY2004."

--
..sigmonster on vacation
10 answers Last reply
More about media rambus income slides revenue gains
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:
    : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    :
    <snip>
    Uh, so what...

    j.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:48:23 +0100, jack wrote:

    > Mike Tomlinson <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:
    > : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    > :
    > <snip>
    > Uh, so what...

    If you don't care, why are you bothering to post?

    --
    Keith
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:11:32 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
    <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:

    >
    >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    >
    >Excerpt:
    >
    >"Rambus' income slid during Q4 FY2004, despite a double-figure jump in
    >year-on-year revenue, the memory technology developer said last night.
    >
    >Net income for the three months to 31 December 2004 totalled $6.5m (six
    >cents a share), down 24.4 per cent on the $8.6m (eight cents a share)
    >the company reported this time last year and 37.5 per cent lower than
    >the $10.4m (ten cents a share) it made in Q3 FY2004."

    You forgot to mention the bit about costs - yep, litigation *is*
    expensive.:-)

    Is this a hook? Let's see if you get any err, bites.:-)

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:43:23 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:11:32 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
    ><mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    >>
    >>Excerpt:
    >>
    >>"Rambus' income slid during Q4 FY2004, despite a double-figure jump in
    >>year-on-year revenue, the memory technology developer said last night.
    >>
    >>Net income for the three months to 31 December 2004 totalled $6.5m (six
    >>cents a share), down 24.4 per cent on the $8.6m (eight cents a share)
    >>the company reported this time last year and 37.5 per cent lower than
    >>the $10.4m (ten cents a share) it made in Q3 FY2004."
    >
    >You forgot to mention the bit about costs - yep, litigation *is*
    >expensive.:-)
    >
    >Is this a hook? Let's see if you get any err, bites.:-)

    Well, he already got a couple of nibbles ;-)

    So are RMBS victims Dumping or Pumping today?

    The archives show how many *years* ahead some of us were with respect to the
    viability of Rambus technology as main memory...and not one thing has changed
    since...

    /daytripper
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:26:36 -0500, daytripper <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:43:23 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:11:32 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
    >><mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    >>>
    >>>Excerpt:
    >>>
    >>>"Rambus' income slid during Q4 FY2004, despite a double-figure jump in
    >>>year-on-year revenue, the memory technology developer said last night.
    >>>
    >>>Net income for the three months to 31 December 2004 totalled $6.5m (six
    >>>cents a share), down 24.4 per cent on the $8.6m (eight cents a share)
    >>>the company reported this time last year and 37.5 per cent lower than
    >>>the $10.4m (ten cents a share) it made in Q3 FY2004."
    >>
    >>You forgot to mention the bit about costs - yep, litigation *is*
    >>expensive.:-)
    >>
    >>Is this a hook? Let's see if you get any err, bites.:-)
    >
    >Well, he already got a couple of nibbles ;-)

    Wrong species though - just little top-feeders.:-)

    >So are RMBS victims Dumping or Pumping today?

    It all looks a mite suspicious to me -- big surprise. Apparently at ~5a.m.
    PST, RMBS issued a statement about a summary judgement ruling in their
    favor from a Northern California District Court in their case vs. Hynix.
    It would appear that by the start of trading on the East coast the stock
    had jumped ~$3.50. Hmmm, how can that happen?

    >The archives show how many *years* ahead some of us were with respect to the
    >viability of Rambus technology as main memory...and not one thing has changed
    >since...

    It seemed to me that they were now making a pretty good go at hi-jacking
    PCI Express??... but what do I know!

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:26:36 -0500, daytripper wrote:

    > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:43:23 -0500, George Macdonald
    > <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:11:32 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
    >><mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    >>>
    >>>Excerpt:
    >>>
    >>>"Rambus' income slid during Q4 FY2004, despite a double-figure jump in
    >>>year-on-year revenue, the memory technology developer said last night.
    >>>
    >>>Net income for the three months to 31 December 2004 totalled $6.5m (six
    >>>cents a share), down 24.4 per cent on the $8.6m (eight cents a share)
    >>>the company reported this time last year and 37.5 per cent lower than
    >>>the $10.4m (ten cents a share) it made in Q3 FY2004."
    >>
    >>You forgot to mention the bit about costs - yep, litigation *is*
    >>expensive.:-)
    >>
    >>Is this a hook? Let's see if you get any err, bites.:-)
    >
    > Well, he already got a couple of nibbles ;-)
    >
    > So are RMBS victims Dumping or Pumping today?
    >
    > The archives show how many *years* ahead some of us were with respect to the
    > viability of Rambus technology as main memory...and not one thing has changed
    > since...

    Maybe, but If I knew how good RMBS was going to be at P&D, I could be
    rich. Screw technology!

    --
    Keith
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Mike Tomlinson wrote:
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    >
    > Excerpt:
    >
    > "Rambus' income slid during Q4 FY2004, despite a double-figure jump in
    > year-on-year revenue, the memory technology developer said last night.
    >
    > Net income for the three months to 31 December 2004 totalled $6.5m (six
    > cents a share), down 24.4 per cent on the $8.6m (eight cents a share)
    > the company reported this time last year and 37.5 per cent lower than
    > the $10.4m (ten cents a share) it made in Q3 FY2004."
    >

    Sounds like AMD this quarter, and AMD didn't have nearly as many
    lawsuits going either. :-)

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:07:19 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > Mike Tomlinson wrote:
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/19/rambus_results_q4_04/
    >>
    >> Excerpt:
    >>
    >> "Rambus' income slid during Q4 FY2004, despite a double-figure jump in
    >> year-on-year revenue, the memory technology developer said last night.
    >>
    >> Net income for the three months to 31 December 2004 totalled $6.5m (six
    >> cents a share), down 24.4 per cent on the $8.6m (eight cents a share)
    >> the company reported this time last year and 37.5 per cent lower than
    >> the $10.4m (ten cents a share) it made in Q3 FY2004."
    >>
    >
    > Sounds like AMD this quarter, and AMD didn't have nearly as many
    > lawsuits going either. :-)

    Do you believe Intel's numbers? There is something poney going on there.
    There is some activity in shorts on Intel!

    --
    Keith
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <9v5vu0trobhlb66gp59q1u7kk7tqana802@4ax.com>, George
    Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes

    >Is this a hook?

    Moi? *whistles innocently*

    > Let's see if you get any err, bites.:-)

    :-) I thought it worth pointing out that a business "model" based on
    suing the arse off the rest of the world based on the premise that
    they're stolen your "intellectual property" has to be fundamentally
    flawed. As the figures quoted show.

    --
    ..sigmonster on vacation
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:48:44 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
    <mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:

    >In article <9v5vu0trobhlb66gp59q1u7kk7tqana802@4ax.com>, George
    >Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes
    >
    >>Is this a hook?
    >
    >Moi? *whistles innocently*
    >
    >> Let's see if you get any err, bites.:-)
    >
    >:-) I thought it worth pointing out that a business "model" based on
    >suing the arse off the rest of the world based on the premise that
    >they're stolen your "intellectual property" has to be fundamentally
    >flawed. As the figures quoted show.

    No doubt... for the long term anyway, but a glance at the insider trading
    records will show that the VCs and principals have been richly rewarded for
    their uhh, efforts. If they and Mosaid keep going as they are, they risk
    ending up with joint ownership of obsolete fabs as their final
    payment(s)... post spin-offs of course.

    Samsung just caved to Mosaid this past week - hard to make a contest when a
    judge has ruled out challenges to the Mosaid's "expert evidence" on the
    operation of products made by Samsung. What I'd really like to see is the
    Mosaid-Rambus confrontation go to public trial and scrutiny.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware IBM