FROM 0 cc ace DATE TIME SUBJECT ATTACHMENT B00Y ‘Gary Harmon ‘exec, crisp 0726/1908 10:46:14 Samsung contract In my view at this point we can either sign the Samsung contract as is or forget them as a licensee. They have made it abundant clear that without the abilty to use Rambus technology in non-Rambus applications there wil ‘be no deal. Given that situation, we did what we could fo protect Rambus’ interests (e.g, they must use CONTINUING best efforts to design, develop, Cost-reduce & market RORAMS or else we yank their license AND sue for infringement; # they intentionally use “substantial” portions of our technology for a competing memory product we can stil sue for infringement while continuing to collect royalties from RDRAM shipments). ‘Samsung is going to do what is good for Samsung; f this means putting a PLL on an SORAM that is what they will do, whether we are licensing them or not. So would we rather have Samsung as a licensee/supporter of Rambus technology, of an all-out opponent? With Samsung as a licensee, at least ‘we have some influence in the direction of their DRAM work. And I don't ‘agree that we can't sue for infringement f they put a PLL on a SDRAM. We agreed with Joel that using one patent claim would not be a “substantial” Portion of our technology. However, our PLL patent application has 25 claims, and presumably the required modification of the SDRAM could involve other Rambus patent claims as well. Who's to say that this is not both intentional and substantial use of Rambus technology? Al least there | an argument which could hold some weight in negotiations with Samsung (On the other hand, with Samsung a nomlicansee we have the biggest single factor in the DRAM business pushing altemate solutions to Rambus. | vole to sign the contract Gary RH 386746 R 234252 (OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY ‘cx0767-001