Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

OR

For the transition period from                                  to                                 

Commission file number: 000-22339

RAMBUS INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

4440 El Camino Real

Los Altos, CA 94022

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(650) 947-5000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $.001 Par Value

Preferred Share Purchase Rights

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes  x    No  ¨

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2004 was approximately $1.3 billion based upon the closing price reported for such date on the Nasdaq Stock Market. For purposes of this disclosure, shares of Common Stock held by persons who hold more than 5% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock and shares held by officers and directors of the Registrant have been excluded because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The number of outstanding shares of the Registrant’s Common Stock, $.001 par value, was 99,025,643 as of January 31, 2005.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Registrant’s next Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Table of Contents

PART I

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (Annual Report) contains forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, predictions regarding the following aspects of our future:

You can identify these and other forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “may,” “should,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “intends,” “potential,” “continue,” or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements also include the assumptions underlying or relating to any of the foregoing statements.

Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those set forth under “Risk Factors.” All forward-looking statements included in this document are based on our assessment of information available to us at this time. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

Rambus, RDRAM, XDR, RaSer, RaSerX and FlexIO are trademarks or registered trademarks of Rambus Inc. Other trademarks that may be mentioned in this annual report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners.

1

Table of Contents

Industry wide terminology, used widely throughout this annual report, has been abbreviated and, as such, these abbreviations are defined below for your convenience:

From time to time we will refer to the abbreviated names of certain companies and, as such, have provided a chart to indicate the full names of those companies for your convenience.

Item 1.    Business

Rambus Inc.^™ (“we” or “Rambus”) was founded in 1990 and reincorporated into Delaware in March 1997. Our principal executive offices are located at 4440 El Camino Real, Los Altos, California. Our Internet address is www.rambus.com. You can obtain copies of our Form 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K reports, and other filings with the SEC, and all amendments to these filings, free of charge from our website as soon as reasonably practicable following our filing of any of these reports with the SEC. In addition, you may read and copy any material we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy, and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

2

Table of Contents

We create a broad range of chip interface technologies that improve the time-to-market, performance, and cost-effectiveness of our customers’ semiconductor and system products. Our licensed products are used in a broad range of computing, consumer electronics and communications applications.

Our chip interface technologies are covered by more than 380 U.S. and international patents. Additionally, we have over 380 patent applications currently pending. These patents and patent applications cover important inventions in memory and logic chip interfaces, in addition to other technologies. We believe that our interface technologies provide a lower risk, more cost-effective alternative for our customers than can be achieved through their own internal research and development efforts.

We offer our customers a number of alternatives for using our chip interface technologies in their products. First, we license our broad portfolio of patented inventions to semiconductor and system companies who use these inventions in the development and manufacture of their own products and for which they pay us royalties. Such licensing agreements may cover the license of part, or all, of our patent portfolio. Second, we develop industry standard and custom chip interface designs that we provide to our customers under license for incorporation into their semiconductor and system products and for which we receive royalty payments or other revenues. In conjunction with the chip interface licenses, our customers receive licenses to our patents as necessary to implement the interface in their products with specific rights and restrictions to the applicable patents elaborated in their individual contracts. Third, we offer engineering services to customers to help them successfully integrate our interface technologies into their chip and system products.

On April 10, 2003, the Board of Directors of Rambus voted to change the fiscal year end of Rambus from September 30 to December 31, effective January 1, 2003. As a result, financial statements included in this report show results of operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 (audited) and 2002 (unaudited), the three months ended December 31, 2002 (audited) and 2001 (unaudited) and the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 (audited). Except as specifically required under Regulation S-X or S-K, we have chosen to present the twelve months ended December 31 information since this is our new fiscal year end.

Background

The performance of computers, consumer electronics and other electronic systems is typically constrained by the speed of data transfer between the chips within the system. Ideally, the frequency of the data transfer between chips should be the same as the frequency of the data transfer on-chip. Over the last decade, however, this has not been the case as on-chip frequencies continue to exceed the frequency of communication between chips at an ever-increasing rate. For example, today’s fastest Pentium^® 4 processors transfer data on-chip at a rate in excess of 3.0 gigahertz (GHz), but transfer data between chips at 1.066 GHz. As a result of this widening performance gap, continued advances to increase on-chip frequencies face potentially diminishing returns in increasing overall system performance. Further, Moore’s Law continues to drive up transistor counts at a much faster rate than packaging technology can increase the pin counts of chips, resulting in another widening performance gap that may impact the ability to increase overall system performance. Our chip interface technologies help semiconductor and system designers narrow these gaps thus helping to boost the performance of electronic systems.

Our Products

Memory Interfaces

We have three memory interface product families:

Our XDR memory interface product family is designed for high-performance, low-cost memory applications. The 2-byte wide XDR DRAM operating at a 3.2 GHz data rate provides up to 6.4 gigabytes per second (GB/s) of bandwidth. The XDR memory interface is available for integration into memory and controller

3

Table of Contents

chips for next-generation consumer electronics, computer graphics and networking applications. The XDR memory interface achieves its high performance using many of our patented inventions, including in the areas of: transferring 8 bits of data per clock cycle using Octal Data Rate technology, using ultra-low voltage differential bi-directional signaling, and utilizing our FlexPhase^™ technology which uses flexible circuits to synchronize data output and compensate for timing errors. Our XDR memory interface technology includes a roadmap to over 12.8 GHz data rates, which enable system memory bandwidth of 400 GB/s and beyond. Leading technology companies such as Elpida, Matsushita, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba have licensed our XDR memory interface technology.

Our RDRAM memory interface product family has been integrated into DRAM memory chips and memory controllers by a number of chip manufacturers. Chips incorporating our RDRAM memory interface are in production, providing high performance for servers, video game consoles, projectors, printers, digital TVs, set-top boxes, routers and switches. Leading technology companies such as Cisco, Intel, Matsushita, Samsung, Sony, Texas Instruments and Toshiba incorporate our RDRAM interface into their products.

Our DDR controller interface product family is designed to be compatible with a number of industry standards. Our DDR controller interfaces support mainstream DDR1 and DDR2 up to 800 megahertz (MHz) data rates and graphics DDR, including GDDR1, GDDR2 and GDDR3, up to 1600MHz data rates. We also offer interfaces that combine DDR or GDDR interfaces with our XDR memory interfaces to provide even higher speed solutions that enable significant improvements in system bandwidth with increased design flexibility. Matsushita and Toshiba have licensed our DDR2 interface for use in their products.

Logic Interfaces

We have three logic interface product families:

We offer a family of industry-standard, high-speed and low-power serial links for communications between logic chips in a broad range of computing, consumer and communications applications. Our industry-standard serial interfaces are compatible with communication protocols such as XAUI, Fibre Channel, Ethernet, PCI Express^® and Serial ATA, as well as emerging next-generation solutions that enable further significant improvements in system bandwidth. Leading companies including Intel, S3 Graphics, Toshiba, and UMC have licensed our serial link interfaces for use in their products.

We also offer a family of customized, high-performance serial links, based on our RaSer V and RaSer X technology, for applications requiring data transfer rates not supported by industry standards. Our RaSer X interface has been demonstrated to operate at greater than 10 gigabits per second (Gb/s) over network backplanes, enabling significant improvement in bandwidth and capacity of enterprise systems. The RaSer V interface technology has been licensed by Toshiba, and the RaSer X interface technology has been licensed by NECEL.

The FlexIO family of processor bus interfaces provides communication between logic chips in a broad range of computing, consumer and communications applications. This technology has been demonstrated to operate at data rates greater than 6.4 Gb/s in test platforms. The FlexIO processor bus interface has been licensed by Toshiba and Sony for use in the cell processor and future broadband applications.

Patent Licenses

We license select parts of our broad portfolio of patents that underpin our chip interface products to our customers. Leading companies such as Elpida, Intel, Matsushita, NEC, Renesas, Samsung, and Toshiba have taken licenses to certain of our patents for use in their own products. Additionally, licensees of our memory and logic interface products and designs, described above, receive, as an adjunct to their interface license agreements, patent licenses as necessary to implement the interface in their products with specific rights and restrictions to the applicable patents elaborated in their individual contracts.

4

Table of Contents

Target Markets, Applications and Customers

We work with leading and emerging chip and system customers to enable their next generation products. We engage with our customers across the entire product life cycle, from system architecture development, to chip design, to system integration, to production ramp up through product maturation. Our interface technologies are incorporated into a broad range of high-volume applications in the computing, consumer electronics and communications markets. System level products that utilize our interfaces include servers, printers, video projectors, video game consoles, digital TVs, set-top boxes, routers and switches manufactured by such companies as Canon, Cisco, Cray, Hewlett-Packard, Juniper, Matsushita and Sony. We also license our patented inventions to a wide range of semiconductor companies including Elpida, Hitachi, Intel, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, NEC, Oki, Renesas, Samsung and Toshiba.

Our Strategy

The key elements of our strategy are as follows:

Develop Core Technology: Develop and patent our core technology to provide us with a fundamental competitive advantage in memory and logic chip interfaces.

Develop Products: Develop products which incorporate our core technology and provide our customers with the benefits of faster time-to-market, lower risk and greater cost effectiveness for a range of applications and performances spanning from industry standard to high performance proprietary interfaces.

Develop Infrastructure and Market: Develop the infrastructure and market to ensure interoperability and the broad availability of our chip interface products.

Engage With Leading and Emerging Companies: Engage with leading and emerging chip and system customers to solve their critical interface design problems and incorporate our low-risk, silicon-proven interfaces into their solutions.

License our Interface Technologies: License our patented inventions and specific chip interface products to customers for use in their semiconductor and system products.

Design and Manufacturing

Our chip interface technologies are developed with high-volume manufacturing processes in mind, such as industry-standard complementary metal-oxide semiconductor processes among others, including those available from leading semiconductor manufacturers. Typically, our interfaces are delivered in one of three ways: implementation package, custom development or off-the-shelf design. We provide implementation packages to licensees who wish to port our interface designs to a manufacturing process being used to develop their semiconductor products. This package typically includes a specification, a generalized circuit layout database and test parameter software. We do custom development when licensees have contracted with us to produce a specific design implementation optimized for the licensee’s manufacturing process. In such cases, the licensee provides specific design rules and transistor models for the licensee’s process. We deliver off-the-shelf products when licensees purchase a previously developed interface design, which is typically the case with fabless semiconductor companies where the design rules and transistor models are provided by a third-party foundry manufacturer.

Research and Development

Our ability to compete in the future will be substantially dependent on our ability to advance our chip interfaces and patented inventions in order to meet changing market needs. To this end, we have assembled a team of highly skilled engineers whose activities are focused on further development of our chip interfaces and patented inventions as well as adaptation of current interfaces to specific customers’ processes. Our engineers are

5

Table of Contents

developing new interfaces and new versions of existing interfaces that we expect will allow chip data transfer at higher speeds, as well as provide other improvements and benefits. Our design and development process is a multi-disciplinary effort requiring expertise in system architecture, digital and analog circuit design and layout, semiconductor process characteristics, packaging, printed circuit board routing, signal integrity and high-speed testing techniques.

As of December 31, 2004, we had 170 employees in our engineering departments, representing 72% of our total human resources. Approximately 52% of our engineering employees have advanced technical degrees and 15% have PhDs. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, research and development expenses were approximately $32.6 million, $30.4 million and $23.7 million, respectively. We expect that we will continue to invest substantial funds in research and development activities. In addition, because our license and customer service agreements often call for us to provide engineering support, a portion of our total engineering costs have been allocated to the cost of contract revenues, even though these engineering efforts have direct applicability to our technology development.

Competition

The semiconductor industry is intensely competitive and has been impacted by price erosion, rapid technological change, short product life cycles, cyclical market patterns and increasing foreign and domestic competition. Some semiconductor companies have developed and support competing logic interfaces including their own serial link interfaces and parallel bus interfaces. We also face competition from semiconductor and intellectual property companies who provide their own DDR memory interface technology and solutions. In addition, most DRAM manufacturers, including our RDRAM and XDR licensees, produce versions of DRAM such as SDRAM, DDRx (where the “x” is a number that represents a version) and GDDRx (where the “x” is a number that represents a version) which compete with RDRAM and XDR chips. We believe that our principal competition for memory interfaces may come from our licensees and prospective licensees, some of which are evaluating and developing products based on technologies that they contend or may contend will not require a license from us. In addition, our competitors are also taking a system approach similar to ours in seeking to solve the application needs of system companies. Many of these companies are larger and may have better access to financial, technical and other resources than we possess.

The JEDEC Solid State Technology Association, a standards setting body including semiconductor and system companies, has standardized what they call an extension of DDR, known as DDR2. JEDEC is also thought to be standardizing what they describe as an extension of DDR that they refer to as DDR3 and a fully buffered DIMM standard. Other efforts are underway to create other products including those sometimes referred to as GDDR4 and GDDR5. To the extent that these alternatives might provide comparable system performance at lower or similar cost than RDRAM and XDR memory chips, or are perceived to require the payment of no or lower royalties, or to the extent other factors influence the industry, our licensees and prospective licensees may adopt and promote alternative technologies. Even to the extent we determine that such alternative technologies infringe our patents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to negotiate agreements that would result in royalties being paid to us without litigation, which could be costly and the results of which would be uncertain.

In addition, certain semiconductor companies are now marketing semiconductors which combine logic and DRAM on the same chip. Such technology, called “embedded DRAM,” eliminates the need for an external chip interface to memory. The impact of embedded DRAM on our business is difficult to predict. If embedded DRAM were to gain widespread acceptance in the electronics industry, and if new royalty-generating licenses were not entered into between us and the manufacturers and/or users of the embedded DRAM products, embedded DRAM would have a negative impact on the royalties that we receive for the use of our patents. We do not currently receive royalties for embedded DRAM. There can be no assurance that competition from embedded DRAM will not increase in the future.

In the industry standard and custom serial link interface business, we face additional competition from semiconductor companies that sell discrete transceiver chips for use in various types of systems, from

6

Table of Contents

semiconductor companies that develop their own serial link interfaces, as well as from competitors, such as ARM and Synopsys, who license similar serial link interface products. At the 10 Gb/s speed, competition will also come from optical technology sold by system and semiconductor companies. There are standardization efforts under way or completed for serial links from standard bodies such as PCI-SIG and OIF. We may face increased competition from these types of consortia in the future that could negatively impact our serial link interface business.

In the FlexIO processor bus interface business, we face additional competition from semiconductor companies who develop their own parallel bus interfaces, as well as competitors who license similar parallel bus interface products. We may also see competition from industry consortia or standard setting bodies that could negatively impact our FlexIO processor bus interface business.

As with our memory interface products, to the extent that competitive alternatives to our serial or parallel logic interface products might provide comparable system performance at lower or similar cost, or are perceived to require the payment of no or lower royalties, or to the extent other factors influence the industry, our licensees and prospective licensees may adopt and promote alternative technologies.

Employees

As of December 31, 2004, we had 237 full-time employees. We believe that our relationship with our employees is excellent.

Patents and Intellectual Property Protection

We maintain and support an active program to protect our intellectual property, primarily through the filing of patent applications and the defense of issued patents against infringement. We currently have more than 380 U.S. and international patents on various aspects of our technology, with expiration dates ranging from 2010 to 2022, and have over 380 pending patent applications. In addition, we attempt to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary information through agreements with licensees and systems companies, proprietary information agreements with employees and consultants and other security measures. We also rely on trademarks and trade secret laws to protect our intellectual property.

7

Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS

We face current and potential adverse determinations in litigation stemming from our efforts to protect and enforce our patents and intellectual property, which could broadly impact our intellectual property rights, distract our management and cause a substantial decline in our revenues and stock price.

We seek to diligently protect our intellectual property rights. In connection with the extension of our licensing program to SDRAM compatible and DDR compatible products in 2000-01, we became involved in litigation related to such efforts. As of December 31, 2004, we were in litigation with three such potential SDRAM compatible and DDR compatible licensees. In each of these cases, we have claimed infringement of our patents while the potential licensees have generally sought damages and a determination that our patents at suit are invalid and not infringed. These potential licensees have also relied or may rely upon defenses and counterclaims (some not yet formally asserted) that our patents are unenforceable based on various allegations concerning our alleged conduct in the 1990s and early 2000s, including that we engaged in litigation misconduct and/or acted improperly during our 1991-96 participation in the JEDEC standard setting organization.

For example, Hynix has now broadened its counterclaims to attempt to include our 1990s relationship with Intel and our alleged disparagement of DDR and SDRAM products in the 1990s. By way of further example, Infineon has indicated that it may, by pointing to documents not produced by us in time for the 2001 trial, try to set aside the 2003 Federal Circuit decision in our favor and reopen all of its now-dismissed JEDEC-related claims against us. The Infineon court held a hearing on February 4-5, 2005 on Infineon’s motion to dismiss our patent infringement claims, and for summary judgment of unclean hands, based on alleged litigation misconduct and spoliation. Infineon has also complained about the alleged destruction of evidence, including through our document retention programs. The trial court has made preliminary rulings endorsing the basis for these “spoliation” claims.

There can be no assurance that parties will not succeed with such claims against us or that they will not in some other way establish broad defenses against our patents or otherwise avoid or delay paying what we believe to be appropriate royalties for the use of our patents or that the pending litigations and other circumstances will not reach a point where we elect to compromise for less than what we now believe to be fair consideration.

Any of these matters, whether or not determined in our favor or settled by us, is costly and diverts the efforts and attention of our management and technical personnel from normal business operations. Furthermore, any adverse determination or other resolution in litigation could result in our losing certain rights, beyond the rights at issue in a particular case, including, among other things: our being effectively barred from suing others for violating certain or all of our intellectual property rights; our patents being held invalid or unenforceable; our being subjected to significant liabilities; our being required to seek licenses from third parties; our being prevented from licensing our patented technology; or our being required to renegotiate with current licensees on a temporary or permanent basis. Failure to achieve positive results in litigation will also result in a failure to trigger certain contractual provisions which would convert certain flat rate royalty arrangements to per unit royalties. Any or all of these adverse results could cause a substantial decline in our revenues.

An unfavorable outcome to us from court proceedings related to Infineon’s motion to dismiss our patent infringement claim and for other sanctions for alleged litigation misconduct that are set for February 2005 is probable and, depending on the severity of the adverse outcome, may lead to a significant decline in our stock price.

Infineon, has recently amended its counterclaims, with leave of the court, to assert legal theories against us related to what it calls spoliation, unfair business practices and/or JEDEC misconduct. On December 20, 2004, Infineon filed a motion for summary judgement to dismiss our patent infringement claim and for other sanctions for alleged litigation misconduct and spoliation. The motion was heard by the court on February 4, 2005. Although, that motion was denied in part, a bench trial has been set to begin on February 21, 2005 to try Infineon’s “unclean hands” defense based on similar allegations. The remanded patent trial is currently set to follow that bench trial with a jury decision that may be issued in early March. Based upon the rulings, conduct and comments of the trial court to date and the appellate court’s rejection of our efforts to have these expanded

8

Table of Contents

claims removed from the case before trial by denying our request for interlocutory review on the subject, we believe it is probable that the trial court will grant some or all of the sanctions requested by Infineon at the February 4, 2005 hearing, that we will, at or before trial, otherwise be denied the relief we seek in the trial court on our affirmative claims for patent infringement, and that Infineon will be granted some form of relief on its counterclaims. An unfavorable outcome to us in some or all of these areas may adversely affect our pending litigations with Hynix and Micron, our pending appeal before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), our ability to enforce our patents against others, our relationships with our existing licensees, our ability to renew existing licenses or secure additional licensees and the value of our stock. While we intend to vigorously pursue an appeal of unfavorable rulings, it is likely that our business will continue to be adversely affected during the pendency of any such appeal, and possibly longer, depending on the severity of the unfavorable outcomes in the trial court and depending on the outcome of any such appeal.

An adverse resolution by or with a governmental agency, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the European Patent Office, could result in severe limitations on our ability to protect and license our intellectual property, and would cause our revenues to decline substantially.

If there were an adverse determination by, or other resolution with, a government agency, we may be limited in enforcing our intellectual property rights and in obtaining licenses, which would cause our revenues to decline substantially. For example, in June 2002, the FTC filed a complaint against us alleging, among other things, that we had failed to disclose certain patents and patent applications during our participation in the establishment of SDRAM standards with JEDEC and that we should be precluded from enforcing our intellectual property rights in patents with a priority date prior to June 1996. Although the initial decision in the FTC proceeding supported Rambus and dismissed the complaint, that initial decision has been appealed by the FTC staff and may be reversed by the FTC or subject to some future compromise given developments in that case or the totality of circumstances we face. The European Commission has directed inquiries to us relating to similar topics. If proceedings by one of these agencies, or any other governmental agency, resulted in a resolution that could limit our ability to enforce or license our intellectual property, our revenues could decline substantially.

On May 13, 2004, the Technical Appeals Board of the European Patent Office issued its written opinion as to the revocation of European Patent No. 0525068. In addition, on January 13, 2005, an opposition board of the European Patent Office revoked our European Patent No. 004956, but has not yet issued its written decision. Although we intend to appeal this decision to an appellate panel of the European Patent Office, this result leaves us with one remaining issued patent in Europe relating to DDR DRAM memory products, which patent is currently subject to a pending opposition proceeding. If a sufficient number of our other patents are similarly impaired or revoked, our ability to enforce or license our intellectual property would be significantly impaired and would cause our revenues to decline substantially.

If we are unable to successfully protect our inventions through the issuance and enforcement of patents, our operating results could be adversely affected.

We have an active program to protect our proprietary inventions through the filing of patents. There can be no assurance, however, that:

If any of the above were to occur our operating results could be adversely affected.

9

Table of Contents

Our inability to protect and own the intellectual property created by us would cause our business to suffer.

We rely primarily on a combination of license, development and nondisclosure agreements, trademark, trade secret and copyright law, and contractual provisions to protect our other, non patentable, intellectual property rights. If we fail to protect these intellectual property rights, our licensees and others may seek to use our technology without the payment of license fees and royalties, which could weaken our competitive position, reduce our operating results and increase the likelihood of costly litigation. The continued growth of our business depends in large part on the applicability of our intellectual property to the products of third party manufacturers, and our ability to enforce intellectual property rights against them. In addition, effective trade secret protection may be unavailable or limited in certain foreign countries. Although we intend to protect our rights vigorously, if we fail to do so our business will suffer.

We might experience payment disputes for amounts owed to us under our licensing agreements, and this may harm our results of operations.

The standard terms of our license agreements require our licensees to document the manufacture and sale of products that incorporate our technology and report this data to us on a quarterly basis. While standard license terms give us the right to audit books and records of our licensees to verify this information, audits can be expensive, time consuming, and potentially detrimental to our ongoing business relationship with our licensees. We have implemented a royalty audit program, which consists of periodic royalty audits of our major licensees, using accounting firms that are independent of our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. We have performed royalty audits from time to time but we primarily rely on the accuracy of the reports from licensees without independently verifying the information in them. Our failure to audit our licensees’ books and records may result in us receiving more or less royalty revenues than we are entitled to under the terms of our license agreements. The result of such royalty audits could result in an increase, as a result of a licensee’s underpayment, or decrease, as a result of a licensee’s overpayment, to previously reported royalty revenues. Such adjustments are recorded in the period they are determined. Any adverse material adjustments resulting from royalty audits or dispute resolutions may result in us missing analyst estimates and causing our stock price to decline. Royalty audits may also trigger disagreements over contract terms with our licensees and such disagreements could hamper customer relations, divert the efforts and attention of our management from normal operations and impact our business operations and financial condition.

Our revenue is concentrated in a few customers, and if we lose any of these customers, our revenues may decrease substantially.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, revenues from our top five licensees accounted for approximately 74% and 75% of our revenues, respectively. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, revenues from Intel, Toshiba, and Elpida, each accounted for greater than 10% of our total revenues. In contrast, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2003, revenues from Intel, Toshiba and Samsung, each accounted for greater than 10% of total revenues. We expect that we may continue to experience significant revenue concentration for the foreseeable future.

Substantially all of our licensees, including Intel, have the right to cancel their licenses, and all but one of our patent licenses covering SDRAM and DDR SDRAM memory and controllers are set to expire in 2005. Failure to renew our existing licenses and/or the loss of any of our top five licensees would cause revenues to decline substantially.

In addition, some of our commercial agreements require us to provide certain customers with the lowest royalty rate that we provide to other customers for similar technologies, volumes and schedules. These clauses may limit our ability to effectively price differently among our customers, respond quickly to market forces, or otherwise to compete on the basis of price. The particular licensees which account for revenue concentration have varied from period to period as a result of the addition of new contracts, expiration of existing contracts,

10

Table of Contents

industry consolidation, the expiration of deferred revenue schedules under existing contracts, and the volumes and prices at which the licensees have recently sold licensed semiconductors to system companies. These variations are expected to continue in the foreseeable future, although we anticipate that revenue will continue to be concentrated in a limited number of licensees.

We are substantially leveraged, which could adversely affect our ability to adjust our business to respond to competitive pressures and to obtain sufficient funds to satisfy our future research and development needs and defense of our intellectual property.

We have significant indebtedness. On February 1, 2005, we issued $300 million aggregate principal amount of zero coupon senior convertible notes due February 1, 2010.

The degree to which we are leveraged could have important consequences, including, but not limited to, the following:

Our ability to pay interest and principal on our debt securities, to satisfy other debt obligations which may arise and to make planned expenditures will be dependent on our future operating performance, which could be affected by changes in economic conditions and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. A failure to comply with the covenants and other provisions of our debt instruments could result in events of default under such instruments, which could permit acceleration of the debt under such instruments and in some cases acceleration of debt under other instruments that may contain cross-default or cross-acceleration provisions. We believe that cash flow from operations will be sufficient to cover our debt service and other requirements. If we are at any time unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations to service our indebtedness, however, we may be required to attempt to renegotiate the terms of the instruments relating to the indebtedness, seek to refinance all or a portion of the indebtedness or obtain additional financing. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully renegotiate such terms, that any such refinancing would be possible or that any additional financing could be obtained on terms that are favorable or acceptable to us.

Our financial results are materially dependent upon Intel, and if we cannot maintain this relationship into the future, our results of operations may decline significantly.

Intel is our largest customer and is an important catalyst for the development of new memory and logic interfaces in the semiconductor industry. We have a patent cross-license agreement with Intel for which we will receive quarterly royalty payments through the second quarter of 2006. The patent cross-license agreement expires in September 2006, at which time; Intel will have a paid up license for the use of all of our patents claiming priority prior to September 2006. Intel has the right to cancel the agreement with us prior to the expiration of the contract. We have other licenses with Intel, in addition to the patent cross-license agreement, for the development of serial link interfaces. If we cannot maintain our relationship with Intel into the future, our results of operations may decline significantly.

11

Table of Contents

Our inexperience in managing rapid growth could strain our resources and cause our financial results to decline.

We may not be equipped to successfully manage any future periods of rapid growth or expansion, which could be expected to place a significant strain on our limited managerial, financial, engineering and other resources. Our licensees and systems customers rely heavily on our technological expertise in designing, testing and manufacturing products incorporating our chip interface technologies. In addition, relationships with new licensees or system companies generally require significant engineering support. As a result, any increases in adoption of our interfaces will increase the strain on our resources, particularly our engineers. Any delays or difficulties in our research and development process caused by these factors or others could make it difficult for us to develop future generations of our interface technologies and to remain competitive. The rapid rate of hiring new employees or coordinating a third party sales relationship with a substantially larger sales force, could be disruptive and could adversely affect the efficiency of our business or cause conflicts in our distribution or sales channels.

We may make future acquisitions or enter into mergers, strategic transactions or other arrangements that could cause our business to suffer.

We may continue to make investments in complementary companies, products or technologies or enter into mergers, strategic transactions or other arrangements, such as our acquisition of certain intellectual property assets from Cadence. If we buy a company or a division of a company, we may experience difficulty integrating that company or division’s personnel and operations, which could negatively affect our operating results. In addition:

In connection with future acquisitions or mergers, strategic transactions or other arrangements, we may incur substantial expenses regardless of whether the transaction occurs. We may also incur non-cash charges in connection with a merger, acquisition, strategic transaction or other arrangement. In addition, we may be required to assume the liabilities of the companies we acquire. By assuming the liabilities, we may incur liabilities such as those related to intellectual property infringement or indemnification of customers of acquired businesses for similar claims, which could materially and adversely affect our business. We may have to incur debt or issue equity securities to pay for any future acquisition, the issuance of which would involve restrictive covenants or be dilutive to our existing stockholders.

We face risks associated with our international licenses and operations, including our new manufacturing and design facility in Bangalore, India.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, international revenues constituted approximately 69% and 64% of our total revenues, respectively. For these periods, our international revenues were derived primarily from licenses of our intellectual property. In an effort to expand our international presence, we recently established a design facility in Bangalore, India which we expect to be fully operational during the first half of 2005. As a result of this new facility and our continued focus on international licensing, we expect that future revenues derived from international sources will continue to represent a significant portion of our total revenues.

12

Table of Contents

To date, all of our internationally based revenues have been denominated in U.S. dollars. However, to the extent that future international revenues are not denominated in U.S. dollars, such revenues would be subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. In addition, if the effective price of products sold by us, licensed by our foreign licensees, or sold by companies that incorporate our technology into their products (such as system companies) were to increase as a result of fluctuations in the exchange rate of the relevant currencies, overall demand for our products could fall, which in turn would reduce our royalties. Currently, we do not use derivative instruments to hedge foreign exchange rate risk.

In addition to the risks mentioned above, our international operations and demand for our products are subject to a variety of other risks which are beyond our control, including:

We and our licensees are subject to many of the risks described above with respect to companies which are located in different countries, particularly home video game console and PC manufacturers located in Asia and elsewhere. There can be no assurance that one or more of the risks associated with our international licenses or operations could not result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our quarterly and annual operating results are unpredictable and fluctuate, which may cause our stock price to be volatile and decline.

Since many of our revenue components fluctuate and are difficult to predict, and our expenses are largely independent of revenues in any particular period, it is difficult for us to accurately forecast revenues and profitability. Factors that could cause our operating results to fluctuate include:

13

Table of Contents

In 2004, royalties accounted for over 82% of our total revenues, and we believe that royalties will continue to represent a majority of total revenues for the foreseeable future. Royalties are recognized in the quarter in which we receive a report from a licensee regarding the sale of licensed chips in the prior quarter; however, royalties are only recognized if collectibility is probable. Royalties are also dependent upon fluctuating sales volumes and prices of licensed chips that include our technology, all of which are beyond our ability to control or assess in advance. In addition, royalty revenues are affected by the seasonal shipment patterns of systems incorporating our interface products, or by a system company change in its source of licensed chips, and the new source’s different royalty rates.

As a result of these uncertainties and effects being outside of our control, royalty revenues are difficult to predict and make accurate financial forecasts difficult to achieve, which could cause our stock price to become volatile and decline.

Our licensing cycle is lengthy and costly which makes it difficult to predict future revenues, which may cause us to miss analysts’ estimates and may result in our stock price declining.

Because our licensing cycle is a lengthy process, the accurate prediction of future revenues from new licenses is difficult. In addition, engineering services are dependent upon the varying level of assistance desired by licensees and, therefore, revenue from these services is also difficult to predict. We employ two methods of contract revenue accounting based upon the state of the technology licensed, the dollar magnitude of the program and the ability to estimate work required over the contract period. We use ratable revenue recognition for mature technologies that require support after delivery of the technology. This method results in expenses associated with a particular contract to be recognized as incurred over the contract period, whereas contract fees associated with the contract are recognized ratably over the period during which the post contract customer support is expected to be provided. We also use percentage of completion accounting for contracts that may require significant development and support over the contract term. There can be no assurance that we can accurately estimate the amount of resources required to complete projects, or that we will have, or be able to expend, sufficient resources required to complete a project. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that the product development schedule for these projects will not be changed or delayed. All of these factors make it difficult to predict future licensing revenue that may result in us missing analysts’ estimates and may cause our stock price to decline.

Our revenue is subject to the pricing policies of our licensees over whom we have no control.

We have no control over our licensees’ pricing of their products and there can be no assurance that licensee products using or containing our interfaces will be competitively priced or will sell in significant volumes. One important requirement for our memory interfaces is for any premium in the price of memory and controller chips over alternatives to be reasonable in comparison to the perceived benefits of the interfaces. If the benefits of our technology do not match the price premium charged by our licensees, the resulting decline in sales of products incorporating our technology could harm our operating results.

If market leaders do not adopt our interface products, our results of operation could decline.

An important part of our strategy for our interfaces is to penetrate markets by working with leaders in those markets. This strategy is designed to encourage other participants in those markets to follow such leaders in

14

Table of Contents

adopting our interfaces. If a high profile industry participant adopts our interfaces but fails to achieve success with its products or adopts and achieves success with a competing interface, our reputation and sales could be adversely affected. In addition, some industry participants have adopted, and others may in the future adopt, a strategy of disparaging our memory solutions adopted by their competitors or a strategy of otherwise undermining the market adoption of our solutions. If any of these events occur and market leaders do not successfully adopt our technologies, our results of operations could decline.

Our revenues could decline if sales made by system companies decline.

Our success is partially dependent upon the adoption of our chip interface technologies by system companies, particularly those that develop and market high volume business and consumer products such as PCs and video game consoles. We are subject to many risks beyond our control that influence the success or failure of a particular system company, including, among others:

The process of persuading system companies to adopt our chip interface technologies can be lengthy and, even if adopted, there can be no assurance that our interfaces will be used in a product that is ultimately brought to market, achieves commercial acceptance or results in significant royalties to us. We must dedicate substantial resources to market to, and support, system companies, in addition to supporting the sales, marketing and technical efforts of our licensees in promoting our interfaces to system companies. Even if a system company develops a product based on our interface, success in the market will depend in part on a supply of semiconductors from our licensees in sufficient quantities and at commercially attractive prices. Because we do not control the business practices of our licensees, we have no ability to establish the prices at which the chips containing our interfaces are made available to system companies or the degree to which our licensees promote our interfaces to system companies.

We face intense competition that may cause our results of operations to suffer.

The semiconductor industry is intensely competitive and has been impacted by price erosion, rapid technological change, short product life cycles, cyclical market patterns and increasing foreign and domestic competition. In addition, most DRAM manufacturers, including our RDRAM and XDR licensees, produce versions of DRAM such as SDRAM, DDRx and GDDRx that compete with RDRAM and XDR chips. These companies are larger and may have better access to financial, certain technical and other resources than we do.

We believe that our principal competition for memory interfaces may come from our licensees and prospective licensees, some of whom are evaluating and developing products based on technologies that they contend or may contend will not require a license from us. Companies are also beginning to take a system approach similar to ours in solving the application needs of system companies. Most DRAM suppliers have been producing DDR chips, which use a technology that doubles the memory bandwidth without increasing the clock frequency.

JEDEC has standardized what they call an extension of DDR, known as DDR2. JEDEC is also thought to be standardizing what they describe as an extension of DDR that they refer to as DDR3. Other efforts are underway to create other products including those sometimes referred to as GDDR4 and GDDR5. To the extent that these alternatives might provide comparable system performance at lower or similar cost than RDRAM and XDR

15

Table of Contents

memory chips, or are perceived to require the payment of no or lower royalties, or to the extent other factors influence the industry, our licensees and prospective licensees may adopt and promote these alternative technologies. Even to the extent we determine that such alternative technologies infringe our patents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to negotiate agreements that would result in royalties being paid to us without litigation, which could be costly and the result of which would be uncertain.

In addition, certain semiconductor companies are now marketing semiconductors that combine logic and DRAM on the same chip. Such technology, called “embedded DRAM,” eliminates the need for an external chip interface to memory. The impact of embedded DRAM on our business is difficult to predict. If embedded DRAM were to gain widespread acceptance in the electronics industry, and if new royalty generating licenses were not entered into between us and the manufacturers and/or users of the embedded DRAM products, embedded DRAM would have a negative impact on the royalties that we receive for the use of our patents. We do not currently receive royalties for embedded DRAM. There can be no assurance that competition from embedded DRAM will not increase in the future.

In the serial link interface business, we face additional competition from semiconductor companies that sell discrete transceiver chips for use in various types of systems, from semiconductor companies that develop their own serial link interfaces, as well as from competitors, such as ARM and Synopsys, who license similar serial link interface cells. At the 10 Gb/s speed, competition will also come from optical technology sold by system and semiconductor companies. There are standardization efforts underway or completed for serial links from standard bodies such as PCI-SIG and OIF. Although these and other competing efforts may infringe our existing or future patents, we may face increased competition in the future that could negatively impact our serial link interface business.

In our FlexIO processor bus interface business, we face additional competition from semiconductor companies who develop their own parallel bus interfaces, as well as competitors who license similar parallel bus interface cells. We may also see competition from industry consortia. Although these and other competing efforts may infringe our existing or future patents, we may face increased competition in the future that could negatively impact our FlexIO processor bus interface business.

With respect to our recently announced DDR controller interface cell business, we face additional competition from semiconductor companies who develop their own DDR controller interfaces, as well as competitors who license similar DDR controller interface cells. We also see competition from companies who sell partial solutions. Although these and other competing efforts may infringe our existing or future patents, we may face increased competition in the future that could negatively impact our DDR controller interface cell business.

If we cannot effectively compete in these primary market areas, our results of operations could suffer.

If we fail to gain and maintain acceptance of our technology in high volume consumer products, our business results could suffer.

Our strategy includes gaining acceptance of our technology in high volume consumer applications. These applications include video game consoles, such as the Sony PlayStation^®2, digital TVs and set top boxes. There can be no assurance that consumer products that currently use our technology will continue to do so, nor can there be any assurance that the consumer products that incorporate our technology will be successful in generating expected royalties, nor can there be any assurance that any of our technologies selected for licensing will be implemented in a commercially developed or distributed product.

Our XDR and FlexIO interfaces and the manufacturing processes to incorporate them are new and complex, which may lead to technology and product development scheduling risks and there remains significant contract work to be completed, therefore percentage of completion accounting is used for these licenses. There can be no assurance that we have accurately estimated the amount of resources required to complete the projects, or that we

16

Table of Contents

will have, or be able to expend, sufficient resources required for these types of projects. In addition, there is market risk associated with these products, and there can be no assurance that unit volumes, and their associated royalties, will occur. If our technology fails to capture or maintain a portion of the high volume consumer market, our business result could suffer.

If we cannot respond to rapid technological change in the semiconductor industry by developing new innovations in a timely and cost effective manner, our operating results will suffer.

The semiconductor industry is characterized by rapid technological change, with new generations of semiconductors being introduced periodically and with ongoing improvements. We derive most of our revenue from our chip interface technologies that we have patented. We expect that this dependence on our fundamental technology will continue for the foreseeable future. The introduction or market acceptance of competing interfaces that render our chip interfaces less desirable or obsolete would have a rapid and material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The announcement of new chip interfaces by us could cause licensees or system companies to delay or defer entering into arrangements for the use of our current interfaces, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial results and condition of operations. We are dependent on the industry to develop test solutions that are adequate to test our interfaces and to supply such test solutions to our customers and us.

Our continued success depends on our ability to introduce and patent enhancements and new generations of our chip interface technologies that keep pace with other changes in the semiconductor industry and which achieve rapid market acceptance. We must continually devote significant engineering resources to addressing the ever increasing need for higher speed chip interfaces associated with increases in the speed of microprocessors and other controllers. The technical innovations that are required for us to be successful are inherently complex and require long development cycles, and there can be no assurance that our development efforts will ultimately be successful. In addition, these innovations must be:

Finally, significant technological innovations generally require a substantial investment before their commercial viability can be determined.

If we cannot successfully respond to rapid technological changes in the semiconductor industry by developing new products in a timely and cost effective manner our operating results will suffer.

Any dispute regarding our intellectual property may require us to indemnify certain licensees, the cost of which could severely hamper our business operations and financial condition.

In any potential dispute involving our patents or other intellectual property, our licensees could also become the target of litigation. While we generally do not indemnify our licensees, some of our license agreements provide limited indemnities, some require us to provide technical support and information to a licensee that is involved in litigation involving use of our technology, and we may agree to indemnify others in the future. Our support and indemnification obligations could result in substantial expenses. In addition to the time and expense required for us to supply such support or indemnification to our licensees, a licensee’s development, marketing and sales of licensed semiconductors could be severely disrupted or shut down as a result of litigation, which in turn could severely hamper our business operations and financial condition.

If we are unable to attract and retain qualified personnel, our business and operations could suffer.

Our success is dependent upon our ability to identify, attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel who can enhance our existing technologies and introduce new technologies. Competition for qualified personnel,

17

Table of Contents

particularly those with significant industry experience, is intense. We are also dependent upon our senior management personnel, most of who have worked together for us for many years. The loss of the services of any of our senior management personnel, or key sales personnel in critical markets, or of a significant number of our engineers could be disruptive to our development efforts or business relationships and could cause our business and operations to suffer.

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure may result in additional expenses.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, new SEC regulations and the Nasdaq National Market rules, are creating uncertainty for companies such as ours. These new or changed laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies, which could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We are committed to maintaining high standards of corporate governance and public disclosure. As a result, we intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new or changed laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, our reputation may be harmed.

While we believe that we currently have adequate internal control procedures in place, we are still exposed to potential risks from recent legislation requiring companies to evaluate controls under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

While we believe that we currently have adequate internal control procedures in place, we are still exposed to potential risks from recent legislation requiring companies to evaluate controls under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We have evaluated our internal controls systems in order to allow management to report on, and our registered independent public accounting firm to attest to, our internal controls, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We have performed the system and process evaluation and testing required in an effort to comply with the management certification and auditor attestation requirements of Section 404. As a result, we have incurred additional expenses and a diversion of management’s time. If we are not able to continue to meet the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner or with adequate compliance, we might be subject to sanctions or investigation by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC or the Nasdaq National Market. Any such action could adversely affect our financial results and the market price of our common stock.

FASB’s adoption of Statement 123R will cause, and changes to existing accounting pronouncements or taxation rules or practices may cause, adverse revenue fluctuations, affect our reported results of operations or how we conduct our business.

On December 16, 2004, FASB adopted Statement 123R, “Share Based Payment,” which will require us, starting in the third quarter of fiscal year 2005, to measure compensation costs for all stock based compensation (including stock options and our employee stock purchase plan, as currently constructed) at fair value and take a compensation charge equal to that value. Also, a change in accounting pronouncements or taxation rules or practices can have a significant effect on our reported results and may even affect our reporting of transactions completed before the change is effective. Other new accounting pronouncements or taxation rules and varying interpretations of accounting pronouncements or taxation practice have occurred and may occur in the future. This change to existing rules, future changes, if any, or the questioning of current practices may adversely affect our reported financial results or the way we conduct our business.

18

Table of Contents

Our operations are primarily located in California and, as a result, are subject to natural disasters, which could result in a business stoppage and negatively affect our operating results.

Our business operations depend on our ability to maintain and protect our facility, computer systems and personnel, which are primarily located in the San Francisco Bay area. The San Francisco Bay area is in close proximity to known earthquake fault zones. Our facility and transportation for our employees are susceptible to damage from earthquakes and other natural disasters such as fires, floods and similar events. Should an earthquake or other catastrophes, such as fires, floods, power loss, communication failure or similar events disable our facilities, we do not have readily available alternative facilities from which we could conduct our business, which stoppage could have a negative effect on our operating results.

The price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly, which may make it difficult for holders to resell their shares when desired or at attractive prices.

Our common stock is quoted on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “RMBS.” The trading price of our common stock has been subject to wide fluctuations which may continue in the future in response to, among other things, the following:

In addition, the equity markets have experienced volatility that has particularly affected the market prices of equity securities of many high technology companies and that often has been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of such companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, our stockholder rights plan, and Delaware law contain provisions that could discourage transactions resulting in a change in control, which may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

Our restated certificate of incorporation, our bylaws, our stockholder rights plan and Delaware law contain provisions that might enable our management to discourage, delay or prevent change in control. In addition, these provisions could limit the price that investors would be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. Among these provisions are:

19

Table of Contents

In addition, the provisions in our stockholder rights plan could make it more difficult for a potential acquirer to consummate an acquisition of our company. We are also subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which provides, subject to enumerated exceptions, that if a person acquires 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, the person is an “interested stockholder” and may not engage in any “business combination” with us for a period of three years from the time the person acquired 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock.

Item 2.    Properties

In January 2001, we moved all of our U.S. operations into a newly constructed building in Los Altos, California. Our lease for this 96,000 square foot building has an initial term of ten years, with options to extend the term for two periods of five years each. We also lease approximately 31,000 square feet in one building in Mountain View, California, which formerly housed our U.S. engineering, marketing and administrative operations. The principal lease for the Mountain View property expires in February 2005. With the move of our U.S. operations to Los Altos, we subsequently subleased the Mountain View facility through February 2005. We also lease space in Tokyo, Japan, and Taipei, Taiwan, for offices which provide sales and technical support to systems companies in Japan and Taiwan and in Bangalore, India for our new design center, which expires in November 2009. We also lease a facility in Chapel Hill, North Carolina which houses primarily engineering operations. The principal lease for this property expires in February 2005.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

For the information required by this item regarding legal proceeding we refer you to Note 13 titled “Litigation and Asserted Claims” of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of this Form 10-K.

Item 4.    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the quarter ended December 31, 2004.

20

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5.    Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our Common Stock is listed on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “RMBS.” The following table sets forth for the periods indicated the high and low closing price per share of our Common Stock as reported on the Nasdaq National Market.

Information regarding Rambus securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans is included in Item 12 (“Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters”) of this report on Form 10-K.

As of January 31, 2005, there were 1,001 holders of record of our Common Stock. Because many of the shares of our Common Stock are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of stockholders represented by these record holders. We have never paid or declared any cash dividends on our Common Stock or other securities and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data

The selected financial data set forth below should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto provided in Item 15 “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.” For a discussion of factors that could cause the information set forth below to not be indicative of our future financial condition or results of operations, see “Risk Factors.”

21

Table of Contents

Item 7.    Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion contains forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, our expectations regarding revenues, expenses and results of operations. Our actual results may differ significantly from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause future actual results to differ materially from our recent results or those projected in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the “Risk Factors” section, and below. We assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements or such risk factors.

Overview

Rambus Inc. creates a broad range of chip interface technologies that improve the time-to-market, performance and cost-effectiveness of our customers’ semiconductor and system products. Our products can be grouped into three major categories: patent licenses, memory interfaces and logic interfaces. Our patent licenses provide rights to elements or all of our broad patent portfolio. Our memory interface technologies provide an interface between memory chips and logic chips. Our logic interface technologies provide an interface between two logic chips. Our licensed products are used in a broad range of computing, consumer electronics and communications applications.

Our chip interface technologies are covered by more than 380 U.S. and international patents. In addition, we have over 380 patent applications currently pending. These patent and patent applications cover important inventions in memory and logic chip interfaces, in addition to other technologies. We believe that our interface technologies provide a lower risk, more cost-effective alternative for our customers than can be achieved through their own internal research and development efforts.

We offer our semiconductor and system customers a number of alternatives for using our chip interface technologies in their products. First, we license elements, or all, of our patent portfolio, for which they pay us royalties. Second, we develop chip interface designs and license elements of our patent portfolio, for which they pay us royalties and license fees. Third, we offer engineering implementation and support services, for which they pay us engineering services fees.

Royalties represent a substantial portion of our total revenue. The remaining part of our revenue is contract revenue which includes license fees and engineering services fees. Amounts invoiced to our customers in excess of recognized revenue are recorded as deferred revenues. The timing and amounts invoiced to customers can vary significantly depending on specific contract terms, and can have a significant impact on deferred revenues in any given period.

We have a high degree of customer concentration, with our top five customers representing 74%, 75% and 81% of our revenues for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, revenue from Intel, Toshiba and Elpida, each accounted for greater than 10% of our total revenues. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, revenues from Intel, Toshiba and Samsung, each accounted for greater than 10% of total revenues. Our revenue from companies based outside of the United States accounted for 69%, 64% and 56% of our revenues for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. We expect that we may continue to experience significant revenue concentration for the foreseeable future and have significant revenues from companies based outside the United States for the foreseeable future.

For the last four years, we have been involved in significant litigation stemming from the unlicensed use of our inventions. Our litigation expenses have been high and difficult to predict during this time and we anticipate future litigation expenses to continue to be significant, volatile and difficult to predict. If we are successful in the litigation and/or related licensing, our revenue could be substantially higher in the future; if we are unsuccessful, our revenue would likely decline.

22

Table of Contents

Subsequent Event

On February 1, 2005, we issued $300 million aggregate principal amount of zero coupon senior convertible notes due February 1, 2010 to Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (Credit Suisse) and Deutsche Bank Securities (Deutsche Bank). We have granted Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank a 30 day option to acquire an additional $60 million aggregate principal amount of notes. We elected to pay the principal amount of the notes in cash when they are due and the initial conversion price of the notes is $26.84 per share. See Note 14 to our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for the terms of these notes.

In connection with this issuance, on January 27, 2005, we repurchased approximately 4.1 million shares of our common stock at a price of $18.51 per share for a total cost of $75 million.

Revenue Concentration

As previously discussed, we have a high degree of customer concentration, with our top five customers representing 74%, 75% and 81% of our revenues for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, revenue from Intel, Toshiba and Elpida, each accounted for greater than 10% of our total revenues. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, revenues from Intel, Toshiba and Samsung, each accounted for greater than 10% of total revenues.

Many of our licensees, including Intel, have the right to cancel their licenses, and the loss of any of our top five licensees would have a material adverse effect on our business. The particular licensees which account for revenue concentration have varied from period to period as a result of the addition of new contracts, expiration of existing contracts, industry consolidation, the expiration of deferred revenue schedules under existing contracts, and the volumes and prices at which the licensees have recently sold licensed semiconductors to system companies. These variations are expected to continue in the foreseeable future, although we anticipate that revenue will continue to be concentrated with a limited number of licensees.

The royalties we receive are partly a function of the adoption of our interfaces at the system company level. Many system companies purchase semiconductors containing our interfaces from our licensees and do not have a direct contractual relationship with us. Our licensees generally do not provide detail as to the identity or volume of licensed semiconductors purchased by particular system companies. As a result, we face difficulty in analyzing the extent to which our future revenues will be dependent upon particular system companies. System companies face intense competitive pressure in their markets, which are characterized by extreme volatility, frequent new product introductions and rapidly shifting consumer preferences. There can be no assurance as to the unit volumes of licensed semiconductors that will be purchased by these companies in the future or as to the level of royalty-bearing revenues that our licensees will receive from sales to these companies. Additionally, there can be no assurance that a significant number of other system companies will adopt our interfaces or that our dependence upon particular system companies will decrease in the future.

International Revenues

As previously discussed, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, international revenues constituted approximately 69%, 64% and 56% of our total revenues, respectively. We expect that revenues derived from international licensees will continue to represent a significant portion of our total revenues in the future.

To date, all of the revenues from international licensees have been denominated in U.S. dollars. However, to the extent that such licensees’ sales to systems companies are not denominated in U.S. dollars, any royalties that we receive as a result of such sales could be subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. In addition, if the effective price of licensed semiconductors sold by our foreign licensees were to increase as a result of fluctuations in the exchange rate of the relevant currencies, demand for licensed semiconductors could fall, which in turn would reduce our royalties. We do not use derivative instruments to hedge foreign exchange rate risk.

23

Table of Contents

For additional information concerning international revenues, see Note 11 titled “Business Segments, Exports and Major Customers” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Expenses

We intend to continue making significant expenditures associated with engineering, marketing, general and administration including litigation expenses, and expect that these costs and expenses will continue to be a significant percentage of revenues in future periods. Whether such expenses increase or decrease as a percentage of revenues will be substantially dependent upon the rate at which our revenues change.

Engineering. Engineering costs are allocated between cost of contract revenues and research and development expenses. Cost of contract revenues is determined based on the portion of engineering costs which have been incurred during the period of the adaptation of our chip-to-chip interfaces for specific licensee processes. The balance of engineering costs, incurred for general development of our interfaces, is charged to research and development. In a given period, the allocation of engineering costs between these two components is a function of the timing of development and implementation cycles. As a generation of technology matures from the development stage through implementation, the majority of engineering costs shift from research and development expenses to cost of contract revenues. Engineering costs are recognized as incurred and do not correspond to the recognition of revenues under the related contracts.

Marketing, general and administrative. Marketing, general and administrative expenses include expenses and costs associated with trade shows, public relations, advertising, legal, finance, insurance and other marketing and administrative efforts. Litigation expenses are a significant portion of our marketing, general and administrative expenses and they can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. For example, litigation expenses for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2004 were $7.5 million as compared to $2.3 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2003. Consistent with our business model, sales and marketing activities are focused on developing relationships with potential licensees and on participating with existing licensees in marketing, sales and technical efforts directed to system companies. In many cases, we must dedicate substantial resources to the marketing and support of system companies. Due to the long business development cycles we face and the semi-fixed nature of marketing, general and administrative expenses in a given period generally are unrelated to the level of revenues in that period or in recent or future periods.

Taxes. We report certain items of income and expense for financial reporting purposes in different years than they are reported for tax purposes. Specifically, we report contract fees and royalties when received for tax purposes, as required by tax law. For financial reporting purposes, however, we recognize revenues from XDR, FlexIO, RaSer and RDRAM contract fees, assuming collectibility, either ratably over the period post-contract customer support is expected to be provided or by using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, depending upon the nature of the contract. We recognize revenues from SDRAM-compatible and DDR-compatible license fees, assuming collectibility, over the contract period and recognize royalty revenues upon notification from licensees. Thus, we recognize revenue earlier for tax than for financial reporting purposes. Accordingly, our net operating profit or loss for tax purposes may be more or less than the amount recorded for financial reporting purposes.

24

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

On April 10, 2003, Rambus changed its fiscal year from September 30 to December 31, effective January 1, 2003. The following discussion of historical operating results compares the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 to the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 and the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 are compared to the twelve months ended December 31, 2002. Additionally, the three months ended December 31, 2002 are compared to the three months ended December 31, 2001 and the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 are compared to the twelve months ended September 30, 2001.

To enhance comparability, the following table sets forth audited Consolidated Statements of Operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 the three months ended December 31, 2002 and the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001. The unaudited periods of the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 and the three months ended December 31, 2001 have been derived from our financial statements for the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and three months ended December 31, 2002.

Twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003, the increase in contract revenue was due primarily to the increase in recognition of revenue associated with our XDR and FlexIO contracts (approximately $5.6 million), and RaSer interface contracts (approximately $3.6 million). In general, we recognize revenue on XDR and FlexIO contracts using the percentage-of-completion method of

25

Table of Contents

accounting. We began recognizing revenue on one of our RaSer contracts during the quarter ended September 30, 2004 using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. We determine progress-to-completion using input measures based on labor hours incurred. The increase in recognition of revenue during 2004 was primarily a result of the increase in the amount of work performed under these contracts.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002, the increase in contract revenue was primarily due to the increase in recognition of revenue associated with our XDR and FlexIO interface contracts (approximately $12.3 million).

We currently expect to recognize revenue on our existing RaSer, XDR and FlexIO percentage-of-completion contracts through 2005. We believe that contract revenues will continue to fluctuate over time based on our ongoing contractual requirements, the amount of work performed under the contracts accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting and the value of new contracts booked over time.

In the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, our largest category of royalties was related to the license of our patents for SDRAM and DDR-compatible products. Royalties increased by approximately $20.0 million for SDRAM and DDR-compatible products in the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003, primarily due to increased shipment volumes of SDRAM and DDR controllers. As of December 31, 2004, SDRAM and DDR-compatible royalties were recognized based on a percentage of the licensee’s revenue with the exception of two contracts that had been previously amended to allow for fixed quarterly payments until there is a favorable resolution to the pending litigation. SDRAM and DDR-compatible royalties increased for the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002 (approximately $15.9 million), primarily due to increased shipment volumes of SDRAM controllers and DDR memory.

As of December 31, 2003, royalties were recognized based on a percentage of the licensee’s revenue with the exception of one contract that had been previously amended to allow for fixed quarterly payments until there is a favorable resolution to the pending litigation. For the period of April 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003 there was a second licensee that had been paying a fixed quarterly sum. As a result of the January 29, 2003 Court of Appeals decision, the second licensee, who was previously paying a fixed quarterly sum for SDRAM and DDR-compatible royalties, reverted back to paying variable royalties in the quarter ended June 30, 2003. All but one of our SDRAM and DDR license agreements expire in 2005. In the future, we expect total SDRAM and DDR compatible royalties will continue to vary from period to period based on our success in renewing existing license agreements and adding new licensees, as well as the level of variation in our licensees’ shipment volumes, sales price, and mix, offset in part by the proportion of licensee payments that are fixed.

The Intel patent cross-license agreement represented the second largest category of royalties in the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002. Royalties under this agreement were unchanged in the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003 as well as in the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002. We expect to continue recognizing revenue from this agreement through June 30, 2006, at which time, Intel will have a paid-up license for the use of all of the patents that we own claiming priority prior to September 30, 2006 and for which we own applications as of that date.

Payments from licensees’ shipments of RDRAM memory chips and controllers that connect to RDRAM memory chips decreased during the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003 by approximately $2.7 million as a result of decreased shipments of RDRAM memory chips offset in part by an increase in royalties from RDRAM controllers. RDRAM royalties decreased during the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002 (approximately $4.8 million) primarily due to decreased shipments of RDRAM memory chips. We believe that the decrease in royalties for RDRAM memory chips for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same periods in 2003, and the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same periods in 2002, was mostly driven by a decline in

26

Table of Contents

shipments of RDRAM memory chips for Intel’s 850E chipset. In the future, we expect RDRAM royalties will continue to vary from period to period based on our licensees’ shipment volumes, sales prices, and product mix.

Certain semiconductor companies are now marketing semiconductors which combine logic and DRAM on the same chip. Such technology, called “embedded DRAM,” eliminates the need for an external chip-to-chip memory interface. The impact of embedded DRAM on our business is difficult to predict. If embedded DRAM were to gain widespread acceptance in the electronics industry, and if new royalty-generating contracts were not entered into between us and the manufacturers and/or users of the embedded DRAM products, embedded DRAM would have a negative impact on the royalties that we receive for the use of our patents. However, we believe embedded DRAM does not appear to be gaining significant acceptance in the industry. We do not currently receive royalties for embedded DRAM. There can be no assurance that competition from embedded DRAM will not increase in the future.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003, the increase in total engineering costs was a result of the increase in compensation costs (approximately $2.6 million) primarily due to the hiring of approximately 54 additional employees in 2003, amortization costs as part of our purchase of serial link intellectual property from Velio during the quarter ended December 31, 2003 (approximately $1.3 million), amortization costs as part of our purchase of serial link intellectual property from Cadence during the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (approximately $1.2 million) and an increase in patent filing costs (approximately $1.2 million). For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002, engineering costs increased primarily due to the addition of engineering personnel required to meet milestones in the contracts for XDR and FlexIO interfaces.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003, the increase in cost of contract revenues was primarily a result of an increase in total engineering costs and an increase in the amount of customer specific work associated with RaSer products (approximately $3.7 million). For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002, the increase was primarily due to the addition of engineering headcount necessary to fulfill XDR and FlexIO interface contractual obligations. We believe that in the future, cost of contract revenues will continue to vary both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenue based on the nature of engineering deployed as part of our ongoing contractual requirements in any given period.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003, the increase in research and development was primarily a result of the increase in total engineering costs partially offset by the increase in customer specific work associated with RaSer products. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002, the increase was primarily due to the hiring of additional personnel. We believe that in the future, research and development will continue to vary in both absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenue from period to period based on the nature, timing, and the number of research and development projects underway. A change in engineering headcount deployment in any given period will also cause research and development spending to vary both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenue.

27

Table of Contents

The increase in total marketing, general and administrative costs including litigation expense for the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003 was primarily due to increased expenses, associated with the defense of our intellectual property (approximately $2.7 million), increased investments in sales and marketing (approximately $1.6 million) which included marketing events, compensation costs and public relations, increased corporate governance costs (approximately $1.2 million) and increased legal personnel expenses (approximately $1.1 million) which included recruiting and compensation costs.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002 the increase in total marketing, general and administrative costs including litigation expense was due to increased litigation expenses (approximately $9.2 million) driven primarily by costs associated with the administrative hearing with the FTC, as described in Note 13 under “Litigation and Asserted Claims” of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

In the future, marketing, general and administrative expenses will vary from period to period based on the trade shows, advertising, legal, and other marketing and administrative activities undertaken, and the change in sales, marketing and administrative headcount in any given period. Litigation expenses are expected to vary from period to period due to the volatility of litigation activities. We expect such costs will increase in the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 relative to the comparable period in 2004 as we continue to engage in simultaneous private litigation in multiple jurisdictions.

Interest and other income, net consists primarily of gains on the sale of equity investments and interest income from our investments. In the twelve months ended December 31, 2004 as compared to the same period in 2003, the increase in interest and other income, net was primarily due to a gain on the sale of our investment in Tessera in 2004 (approximately $3.6 million).

28

Table of Contents

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 compared to 2002 the increase in interest and other income, net was primarily due to the inclusion in other income of a pre-tax gain of $1.2 million, resulting from the divestiture of Rambus’s investment in NurLogic which was acquired by Artisan Components, Inc. (now a part of ARM).

In the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, our effective tax rate was 30% as compared with a rate of 32% for the comparable period in 2003. The effective tax rate decreased primarily due to state taxes and research and development tax credits. In 2005, we expect an effective tax rate of 37%.

At December 31, 2004, our balance sheet included net deferred tax assets of approximately $88.9 million, relating primarily to the difference between tax and book treatment of depreciation and amortization, employee stock related compensation expenses and deferred revenue, net operating losses and tax credits. In the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, we increased our net deferred tax assets by $33.2 million, mainly due to tax benefits from the exercise of employee stock options and the capitalization of research and development for federal and state tax returns.

The deferred tax asset valuation allowance is subject to periodic adjustment as facts and circumstances warrant. The ability to realize the deferred tax asset is dependant on sufficient levels of future taxable income and other factors.

Three Months Ended December 31, 2002 and 2001

Revenues were $25.7 million and $24.9 million in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively.

Contract revenues were $1.4 million and $3.1 million in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in contract revenues was due largely to the expiration of revenue recognition periods for several contracts. This decrease was partially offset by increased contract revenues for RaSer interface technologies and the first revenues for XDR interface technologies.

Royalty revenues were $24.3 and $21.8 million in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. Our largest category of royalties was the Intel cross-license agreement. The royalties for this agreement were unchanged in the three months ended December 31, 2002 when compared to the three months ended December 31, 2001.

The next largest category of royalties is from licensees for the use of Rambus patents and intellectual property in SDRAM and DDR-compatible products. Royalties increased for SDRAM and DDR-compatible products primarily due to increased royalties on shipments of SDRAM controllers. As of December 31, 2002, the

29

Table of Contents

SDRAM and DDR-compatible royalties were based on variable royalties with the exception of two contracts that were amended to allow for fixed quarterly payments until there is a favorable resolution to the pending litigation. As of December 31, 2001, the SDRAM and DDR-compatible royalties were based on variable royalties with the exception of one contract that was amended to allow for fixed quarterly payments until there is a favorable resolution to the pending litigation.

The final category of royalties is from licensees’ shipments of RDRAM memory chips and controllers that connect to RDRAM memory chips. The increase in revenues in the three months ended December 31, 2002 when compared to the three months ended December 31, 2001 is caused by growth in unit volumes shipped. This volume growth was partially offset by declines in ASPs for RDRAM memory chips.

Engineering costs, consisting of cost of contract revenues and research and development expenses, were $8.1 million and $7.3 million, in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The increase in engineering costs in the three months ended December 31, 2002 was a result of increased compensation costs related to salary increases and the hiring of additional engineering personnel.

Cost of contract revenues were $1.6 million and $2.2 million in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in the cost of contract revenues in the three months ended December 31, 2002, was primarily due to the fulfillment of contract commitments. This resulted in the reassignment of engineering resources to research and development activities.

Research and development expenses were $6.5 million and $5.1 million, in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. Research and development expenses increased 27.5% in three months ended December 31, 2002 as compared to three months ended December 31, 2001. Research and development expenses increased as investment increased in the RaSer, XDR and Redwood interfaces, including the reassignment of engineering resources to research and development activities as well as increased compensation costs related to salary increases and the hiring of additional engineering personnel.

Marketing, general and administrative expenses were $10.8 million and $10.0 million in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The 8.0% increase in the three months ended December 31, 2002 in marketing, general and administrative expenses was primarily the result of increased compensation costs resulting from the hiring of additional personnel and an increase in Director and Officer liability insurance premiums. Litigation expenses in the three months ended December 31, 2002 were consistent with the three months ended December 31, 2001.

30

Table of Contents

Interest and other income, net was $1.3 million and $1.9 million in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in absolute dollars in the three months ended December 31, 2002 was due to lower interest rates and reduced rental income from the sublease of our former office facilities in Mountain View, California.

We recorded an income tax provision of $2.6 million and $3.3 million in the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. In the three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, our effective tax rate was 32% and 35%, respectively. The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to state taxes and research and development tax credits.

Twelve Months Ended September 30, 2002 and 2001

Revenues were $96.6 million and $117.2 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively.

Contract revenues decreased 65% to $7.6 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002. The decrease in contract revenues in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 is due largely to the completion of contract commitments for several RDRAM contracts.

In the twelve months ended September 30, 2002, royalties decreased 6.7% to $89 million, including a decline in royalties for SDRAM and DDR-compatible products. The decline in royalties for SDRAM and DDR-compatible products was partially offset by increased licensees’ shipments of RDRAM memory chips and memory controllers that connect to RDRAM memory chips, primarily due to the success of the Sony PlayStation^® 2. In addition, royalties in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 reflect the first full year of royalties received under the Intel cross-license agreement which was signed in September 2001. In the three months ended March 31, 2002, due to the adverse litigation results in 2001, we agreed to an amended fixed royalty agreement with a small licensee for SDRAM and DDR-compatible products. This was the second such agreement which called for fixed quarterly royalty payments for these products. The first agreement was with a large licensee in July 2001.

31

Table of Contents

Engineering costs, consisting of cost of contract revenues and research and development expenses, were $29.9 million and $28.1 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The increase in engineering costs in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 was a result of increased compensation costs related to salary increases and the hiring of additional engineering personnel.

Cost of contract revenues were $7.6 million and $9.9 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in the cost of contract revenues in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 was primarily due to the successful launch and ramp of RDRAM semiconductors into the PC main memory market resulting in a reduction in engineering support efforts. This resulted in the reassignment of engineering resources to research and development activities.

Research and development expenses were $22.3 million and $18.2 million, in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively. Research and development expenses increased 22.5% in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 as compared to the same time period in 2001 due to increased investments in our XDR, Redwood and RaSer interface technologies, including the reassignment of engineering resources to research and development activities.

Marketing, general and administrative expenses were $35.2 million and $48.4 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 in marketing, general and administrative expenses primarily represents decreased litigation costs associated with the defense of our intellectual property. Litigation costs were $11.3 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 versus $27.1 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2001. Trial delays in several of the pending cases as well as the number of simultaneous litigation activities contributed to the significant litigation expenses in the twelve months ended September 30, 2001. In addition, at the beginning of January 2001, we began to incur higher rent and other ongoing operating costs associated with relocating our corporate headquarters to a larger facility to accommodate anticipated long-term growth.

Interest and other income, net was $6.6 million and $8.9 million for the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in absolute dollars in fiscal 2002 was due to lower interest rates and reduced rental income from the sublease of our former office facilities in Mountain View, California. During the twelve months ended September 30, 2002, we sold one investment for a $2 million gain and wrote down investments by $2 million to more closely reflect our estimate of current market values of the remaining securities.

We recorded an income tax provision of $13.3 million in the twelve months ended September 30, 2002, as compared with an income tax provision of $18.4 million the twelve months ended September 30, 2001. The tax rate for the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001 was 35% and 37%, respectively.

32

Table of Contents

Contingent Warrants, Common Stock Equivalents, and Options

Warrants

In October 1998, our Board of Directors authorized an incentive program in the form of warrants for a total of up to 1,600,000 shares of our Common Stock to be issued to various RDRAM licensees. The warrants, which were issued at the time certain targets were met, have an exercise price of $2.50 per share and a life of five years from the date of issuance. These warrants vest and become exercisable only upon the achievement of certain milestones by Intel relating to shipment volumes of RDRAM chipsets, which could result in a non-cash charge to the statement of operations based on the fair value of the warrants if and when the achievement of the Intel milestones becomes probable. Since Intel has phased out the 850E chipset, the likelihood that the unvested warrants will vest is considered remote. As of December 31, 2004, warrants exercisable for a total of 1,520,000 shares had been issued and 1,280,000 remain outstanding. These warrants began to expire in February 2004 and will have expired by January 2006. The impact of these warrants has been excluded from the calculation of net income per share.

Contingent Common Stock Equivalents and Options

As of December 31, 2004, there were 1,000,000 contingent unvested Common Stock Equivalents, or CSEs, and 845,846 contingent unvested options, which vest upon the achievement of certain milestones by Intel relating to shipment volumes of RDRAM chipsets. These CSEs were granted to our previous Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and President in 1999 and the options were granted to certain of our employees in 1999 and 2001. The CSEs were granted with a term of 10 years and the options were granted with an exercise price of $2.50 and a term of 10 years. If and when the achievement of the Intel milestones become probable, there would be an almost entirely non-cash charge to our statement of operations based on the fair value of the CSEs and options. Since Intel has phased out the 850E chipset, the likelihood that the unvested CSEs and options will vest is considered remote. The impact of these CSEs and options has been excluded from the calculation of net income per share.

Share Repurchase Program

In October 2001, our Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program of our Common Stock principally to reduce the dilutive effect of employee stock options. Since the beginning of the program, our Board has authorized the purchase in open market transactions of up to ten million shares of outstanding our Common Stock over an undefined period of time. As of December 31, 2004, we had repurchased 7.5 million shares of our Common Stock at an average price per share of $10.05. As of December 31, 2004, there remained an outstanding authorization to repurchase 2.5 million shares of outstanding our Common Stock.

On January 27, 2005, in connection with our issuance and sale of $300 million principal amount of zero coupon senior convertible notes due February 1, 2010, we repurchased approximately 4.1 million shares of our common stock at a price of $18.51 per share for a total cost of $75 million.

Liquidity and Capital Resources