Hitachi Folds, Rambus Keeps On Rolling 113
macsen writes " Yet another company gives into Chipzilla's memory mongers, and it doesn't bode well. Hitachi appears to be going for an upfront settlement, and an agreement to drop litigation between the company and Rambus. Two companies in less than a week, and the Third Law of Thermodynamics begins to take hold.
See what
Tom's Hardware has to say." Check out a more informational original link. This is most ungood - see the first folding, as done by Toshiba last week.
Re:Let the RAMBUS bashing begin (Score:4)
Rambus claimed that the poor performance on P2's was due to slow CPU speeds and that faster CPU's would show how RDRAM shines. Well, between Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] and the last review posted on here (don't have the link-sorry), on identical high-end P3's it's just barely the equal of SDRAM (at over twice the price). It shines in data streaming - one high-latency memory query, then lots of data flows. What SDRAM is good at is little file queries - I want to open a Word doc that's 4k. By the time RDRAM finishes it's slow query my SDRAM has already delivered the page...
If the world was fair, what people would do is boycott buying RDRAM modules, systems, etc. and buy more SDRAM. Enough to offset the higher royalties with economy in volume. Who cares if they're paying royalties - the chip makers are selling lots of SDRAM, there's no demand for RDRAM so they don't produce it, Rambus stock hits the toilet, then the royalties stop when Rambus goes bankrupt.
The world being what it is, the Rambus royalties will price SDRAM almost as high as RDRAM, people will put off buying it "until the price comes back down", by which time RDRAM boards and RIMMS will be more common. Big royalties to Rambus, lots of happy Rambus stockholders, lots of locked-in consumers. Gotta love the 'free-market' economy...
Re:Econ 102 (Score:2)
Patent system get crazy (Score:1)
So, I think those 2 are good news. Surprised? I think now even the idiot can understand that patents are bad thing. So, just wait 1 or 2 years more, and anti-patent lobby will be bigger than pro-patent. And things will start to change.
What do you think?
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:1)
<p>CP/M anyone?
Rambus royalty rates? (Score:3)
Patent-free RAM? (Score:2)
Not that I have any experience in developing hardware, but just an idea.
Re:there's no headlines in this. (Score:1)
Maybe if the various branches of government worked together in accordance with the Northwest Ordinance [earlyamerica.com], we wouldn't have this problem:
The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress from time to time: which laws shall be in force in the district until the organization of the General Assembly therein, unless disapproved of by Congress; but afterwards the Legislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
It takes all branches, people. Don't dump it all on the DOJ!
Re:High speed ferrite core (Score:1)
Re:where is Doj (Score:2)
I've done this, but it doesn't seem like this is the kind of complaint this form is suited to, based on all the questions at the bottom for "How much did this company ask you to pay", "how did you pay them", et cetera. However, the form submission worked fine with those fields blank.
I pasted the URL to this discussion in the comments field, and a nice quote, so hopefully they won't just click delete, and will forward it where it belongs.
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:2)
The turbine car that Chrysler build was expensive because of that. Mass production wouldn't have solved that problem.
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:2)
Ummm - the Airbus consortium announced today that it was proceeding with the A3XX, a super jumbo. And a military variant that would dwarf Boeing's C51A (or whatever its called now since the last takeover).
Not that I totally disagree with you, or agree completely with the previous poster - but this argument of yours doesn't hold too much water...
Re:Hitachi maintains that they don't violate paten (Score:3)
It is an excellent PR move for Hitachi, and Rambus doesn't need to care about its PR image - just the legal system.
This seems like better PR for RAMBUS than it is for Hitachi. If the headline was what was used for your topic (IE, Hitachi maintains that they don't violate patents) then I see that as face-saving.
What this says to the public about Hitachi is a mixed bag. To the technically literate and aware (IE, the people contributing in this discussion, we hope, except for the exceptions proving the rule) this says that Hitachi would rather bend over and take it than fight for the side of right. To everyone else, this means that RAM prices will go up. Some people are going to believe that this is just Altruism on Hitachi's part, but Corporations Have No Soul. What's good for the quarterly report is good for the company.
I do agree with you that this is just over the cost of litigation. Any Hitachi-issued press release (Or RAMBUS-issued) is just an attempt to do some last-minute ass covering.
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:2)
For me, RAMBUS is yet another example in a long string of Things That Should Have Failed. Rambus didn't win on technical merits, nor did it win on a better price point, no - it won on the basis of a bad decision by Intel and some legal wrangling. AMD quietly adopted Rambus, and even went as far as to make it so their next generation CPU will not take anything but Rambus.
OK, I agree with you on the first part. If RAMBUS didn't have intel's support it would have failed long ago. But where on earther did you come up with that second part?! AMD adopted RAMBUS? Since when? You can't buy a Athlon motherboard that supports RAMBUS if you wanted to! They don't exist. Sure, AMD licensed RAMBUS, but only as a "just in case" measure. If the industry moved towards RAMBUS they didn't want to be left out in the cold. But the industry hasn't, and it doesn't look like they're going to.
And now you're saying that AMD's next-generation CPU will be RAMBUS-only?! Huh? Where do you come up with this stuff? AMD has announced strong support of DDR SDRAM for their Mustang (the next version of the Athlon to be released late this year) and has absolutely no plans to have it support RAMBUS. They haven't announced anything as far as what memory the K8/Sledgehammer will use, but there is no reason to believe that it will be RAMBUS-only. Especially now that AMD has officially started supporting DDR SDRAM. How on earth did you get the idea that AMD was only going to support RAMBUS? Is this just FUD, or did you really believe it?
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:2)
As far as their next generation CPU (I assume you're talking about the K8) only working with RDRAM, that's the first I've heard about it. Where did you get that info, do you have a link? Are you sure you're not thinking of Intel's next generation processor, the Willamette?
It's all bullshit anyway. You don't make a CPU only talk to one kind of memory, you make a chipset only talk to one type of memory.
Re:High speed ferrite core (Score:1)
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:1)
RAMBUS holds the favor of the king. Period. Regardless of how they cam across the favor of the king, they do. If it's not genuine favor, fine. Prove it. So far, two other pirates have been unable (or unwilling) to do so. Sure, RAMBUS probably cut them in on the deal. They've been known to do that. So what? It's piracy.
No one believes that RAMBUS is bad. They just don't like the looting and raping, don't like what it "Might" do to their families, and don't like the technology. Thus, RAMBUS is a Bad Thing (tm). Cry me a river. If you don't want it, don't give them your money.
"But it might be our only choice in the future!"
Bullshit. Another pirate will emerge. One always does. If RAMBUS is truly as bad as everyone claims, Anarchism will take over and make sure it doesn't go any further. Sure, pirates have monetary reasons for making sure RAMBUS succeeds. So what? They'll succeed, these companies will make their take everyone's money then leave. No one will get hurt. Watch.
All I'm trying to say is that everyone just needs to settle down. There's a buck to be made by all of us here. You can prey on the weak too!
So just sit back and go with it. It'll all settle out eventually. Moore's law says so.
Re:Uninformed posters must be stopped. (Score:1)
Ummm..... dude.... Ram is about the highest marked up piece of equipment you can put in a computer.
I did computer sales a few years ago, and the markup we could look at (which was less than the actual markup) was like 800%.
---CONFLICT!!---
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
Re:Looks (Score:1)
---CONFLICT!!---
So what? (Score:1)
Patents create government-endorsed monopolies. They encourage progress by giving inventors first dibs on profit. Sure, the economy suffers a little deadweight loss during a patent's early years, but the consumer still wins in the long run. I think the basis for a patent system is sound. The problem is that too many are vague, too many patents are granted, and the life of patents is too long (it should be long enough for a business to establish its product in the market, but not much longer).
Re:Uninformed posters must be stopped. (Score:1)
Aside from your incredible claim, I was talkig about the price that memory manufacturers get for volume, wholesale, unmounted chips. Historically, memory sales have been so competitive that margins have been razor thin at times.
One link from cnet [cnet.com] that might be informative for you, says: "This is price erosion, as opposed to a free fall," the likes of which resulted in below cost pricing up until mid-1998, Giudici said. "Pricing is more rational now--most [manufacturers] are eking out some sort of margin," he noted, adding that PC demand looks to remain strong--a situation that bodes well for memory makers.
Note that "below cost pricing" usually means "no profit".
You can find many references to the shallow profits that memory makers have had for the last 15 years if you go look. Memory chips (different from memory sticks) are sold mainly in large volume, by contract at a fixed price for a certain period. This way, memory packagers and consumers get a consistent supply and price. The price that the memory chip maker gets according to contracted agreement is usually constant while the cost of manufacture may change due to raw material shortages or equipment failures, etc...
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
I tend to agree that patents and their abuse by forbidding anyone to use said technology because the patent holder says so is bad. Very bad, even. As was stated, as patents start to run out, advances come based upon those old ideas. Whoever has the most money and the most researchers thinking on the subject generally get the next prizes. That's not always the case, but in the realm of 'deep science', where discoveries are harder to find by accident, you can't just sit down, go "Oh, hey, what about this?" and poof, new patent. We're starting to push our boundries harder and faster, and in such a rapid expansion, there's little chance for the hobbyist at home to come up with a patentable idea.
I'm not aware if patents are sellable items or not, but it would seem that if they are, this is a Bad Thing (tm). Small company comes up with some new revolutionary idea where noone else was looking, some Big company comes in and says "Hey, we'll buy that patent for $100mil". What company is going to say no, especially if it's small? So the large company gets the patent, and rather than do anything with it, they sit on it, barring even the original discoverers from progressing further, since via the idea of inheritance, without patent A in existance, patent B couldn't have been found, making patent B more or less the property of the owners of patent A. I can see a company taking another company to court over 'You used my idea to make something new, and I want in!'.
This sort of segways into my next thought, what do you do about patents that sit idle? Should a company owning a patent be permitted to hold that idea in secret and bar it's use in other areas? I say no. If you're not going to do something with the patent, and the idea contained within, it should revert to public domain. This doesn't mean that you can't continue researching on the topic and hold it for yourselves, but it would prevent someone from buying a patent for some revolutionary new Widget, then stuffing it in a closet for 20 years, stagnating further research based upon that topic.
I think that having patents is not a bad thing inherantly. I think allowing them to be sold compounds the problem, and I think permitting them to sit idle is even worse. Unless you can prove that further research in a particular area (based on a patented idea) is hazardous, you should not be able to stifle development upon it.
Slightly off topic, but yet still having relevence, I remember hearing long time ago about a hair dresser that came up with this plastic called Starlyte. An interesting concept it was, too. This plastic conducted almost no heat what so ever, even in the thinnest layer. Dip an egg in this liquid plastic, let it cool, hold a torch on it for 30 minutes or an hour, and the egg inside the plastic would never have even gotten warm. The last I heard of this plastic was that he had sold it to Dupont for development and production. That's it, and that was .. maybe 8 years ago. When given the formula and the plastic itself, why would it take Dupont so long to begin production on such a thing. Retooling? I don't think so. No use for it? Again, I don't think so. Foam insulation from this plastic could make homes infinately more heat efficient. Clothing with this woven in could provide protection against burns and such, and not to mention firefighter suits of this stuff. I ask, what happened to it. Was it caustic? Why wasn't that said in a press release soon after? What happened to this patent? Maybe we should ask Dupont.
Patents are good to protect your ideas from someone else who wants to claim credit for them. Patents are bad when they can be abused to grind innovation to a halt while companies wait for these patents to expire.
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:1)
True, but just because it's true, does that mean it's acceptable? This dichotomy is really rather depressing, & the fact that you seem to accept it so readily even more so. To my mind, companies have no less social responsibility then the individual.
Contrary to VERY popular belief, RIMMs are NOT bad technology. It's just expensive technology. And with any technology, it had a downside (mainly the latency). But it's NOT bad. If it were bad, no one would use it at all. No amount of money can make people adopt a BAD technology. Maybe one that isn't as good as it could be, but not a truly BAD technology.
Nonsense. Money may not be able to KEEP users, but money can certainly get people to adopt. And what you're failing to recognize is that Intel really doesn't care whether they have satisfied customers or not. Even with the gains of AMD, they still hold a commanding lead & know that a lucrative deal such as they have with Rambus more then accounts for any potential losses in customer satisfaction.
No one believes that RAMBUS is bad. They just don't like the business practices, don't like what it "Might" do to the industry, and don't like the technology. Thus, RAMBUS is a Bad Thing(tm). Cry me a river. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Actually, from what I've heard, Rambus is overpriced, and not particularly fast for most applications. Does that make it bad? Well, for me, yes. I don't have the budget to shell out $472 for 128MB. Nor do I have an application that demands it. But with Rambus using these techniques, I may not have a choice-- I'll either buy a RIMM, or buy SDRAM for the same price due to licensing fees.
Another technology will emerge. It always does. If RAMBUS is truly as bad as everyone claims, Digital Darwinism will take over and make sure it doesn't go any further. Sure, comapnies have monetary reasons for making sure RAMBUS succeeds. So what? They'll succeed, these companies will make their money, then leave RAMBUS out to dry. Watch.
Of course, but events that occur today will set the course of memory technology for the next three to five years or more. As far as I know, there are no new technologies on the immediate horizon, so if the current situation goes unchecked, expect memory prices to go up in the forseeable future.
All I'm trying to say is that everyone just needs to settle down. There's a buck to be made by all of us here (a LOT of people cashed in on the Intel MTH debacle getting themselves free
RIMMs) and no one seemed to care about ethics in that situation.
How is unethical to demand that Intel fix a defective product? If Intel had not shipped before it was ready, they would not have been in the situation where they needed to replace the memory. If you purchased an affected motherboard, it's not even slightly unethical to demand a replacement, even if you're not directly affected by the bug. You pay a premium for the Intel brand name. You have a right to expect quality to go with that premium. If it doesn't, Intel has a (moral AND legal) responsibility to fix it.
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
Building a long-lived, reliable turbine with modern ceramics is possible. It ain't cheap yet, but if crude goes over $30 a barrel for any long time I bet the auto manufacturers will find a way.
I want to drive one when it comes out. Can you say kick-ass, seat-of-the-pants acceleration? I knew you could....
ps
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
While I agree with you in spirit, I don't think I quite agree with you that the patent process as a whole should be done away with. Instead, it needs to be completely revamped... I'd suggest an overall shortening of patent terms-- say three years for legitimate software patents, probably five years on most other patents & five years from the date of FDA approval in the case of drug patents.
Does anyone honestly believe that drug research would grind to a halt if there were no patents? If so, then why does open source software development not grind to a halt?
Yes, drug research would grind (more-or-less) to a halt. The cost of developing a new medicine is staggering. Add to that the costs to adequately test its safety & a company needs to have a window in which they can reasonably expect to profit from an invention. Giving the companies a tempporary monopoly gives them incentive to continue to develop.
Comparing drug research to open-source software is somewhat akin to comparing apples to 747's. The industries are so completely different that it's hard to respond. But basically, Open-source works because the cost of entry is low. Anyone with a modicum of computing experience can develop a functional tool (be it a new utility or new OS), which can then be developed by others of similar skill level. There's no need for an advanced-- or even high school-- degree, nor are any special tools or resources required-- just a home computer. Developing drugs,on the other hand realistically requires several people with AT LEAST 4 years of advanced schooling (& more likely 8+ years), as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in laborotory equipment, etc. Then, once you get all that, you start the several year process to get to the point that you have a product worthy of testing in animals. Several years later (IF you're EXTREMELY lucky), you have a product that you can start testing in humans. Then, maybe another 5 years later, again with extreme luck, you have a product that you can begin marketing. I seem to recall that the average investment before a drug ever reaches market is around 10 million. And under our current system, about half of the twenty-year patent is gone before the product ever reaches market.
Note, however, I'm NOT an apologist for the drug industry. I STRONGLY support reform, but at the same time I'm willing to recognize the realities of the business. Granting five years after FDA approval still gives a reasonable window of opportunity without unreasonably hindering related advancements.
Re:Rambus must be stopped. (Score:1)
What a choice - make your high-price RDRAM perform the same as PC133 SDRAM, or pitiful memory speed but get full performance out of your high-price P3 CPU. Feels like a winner either way
Re:Could you imagine... (Score:2)
Apple, are you listening? Where do I sign up...
Econ 102 (Score:2)
Prices exist in a state of *disequilbrium*, fluxating with the changes in knowledge and preferences of economic actors. They *tend* towards a theoretic equilibrium, depending on the speed of information flow within the relevant market. Compare, for example, the consistency of crude oil prices from transaction to transaction vs. the inconsistency of, say, designing a web site.
The price for any given transaction is somewhere between the minimum the seller is willing to accept and the maximum the buyer is willing to pay. Each party's profit on the exchange is the difference between the *actual* price and their threshold price.
As far as whether this is capitalism -- well, I'll agree that the patents involved are questionable at best. I just thought there should be no delusions about "equilibrium price."
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:3)
There is a reason we are all driving filthy petroleum burning cars despite having had the technology for clean hydrogen burning motors for over forty years. (The oil companies bought up the patents and buried them - only now are a few buses finally burning hydrogen fuel and filling the air with water vapor instead of carcinogens - the patents are expiring.)
No.
This something called "folklore." That is, information which is spread by word of mouth. Sometimes, folklore is true. More often, and in this case, it's not. I'm friends with a professor of English at The University of Colorado at Boulder whose specialization is folklore. He's even currently writing a book specifically on car lore. He looked into this, and found no factual support for these sorts of claims.
The reason has more to do with the cost of modifying and building assembly lines, developing assembly processes, etc. There's a big cost to switch over, and industries know all sorts of tricks and techniques for current technologies to make manufacture more cost efficent.
Of course, if you do find a patent which some automaker bought out and buried, you'll most probably make it into the credits of his book.
Re:So.... (Score:1)
Intel is helping out (Score:4)
Soon customers will be forced to buy a more expensive and lower performing system because Rambus is bullying other companies around. They must have a good case. They probably got a very general patent on "fast memory" from the US Patent Office. Way to go, USPO!
Re:Any good designs in the industry? NO. (Score:2)
Re:Rambus must be stopped. (Score:2)
Besides which, as the benchmarks have shown, with 1ghz P3, a BX with PC133 SDRAM is faster than an 810 or 820 or whatever it was with PC800 RDRAM. What a joke.
We'll see what happens with intel's next chipset that actually has real support for RDRAM rather than something they just threw together over a weekend. However, since 133mhz bus DDR SDRAM has twice the bandwidth of PC800 RDRAM (Literally) I just don't see it being much of an issue; Likewise, the latency and bank-switching of RDRAM is going to hurt you whether you're doing short OR long reads. However, you could fix the bank switching problem by interleaving memory and having a really bright memory controller...
Damn You Rambus, Damn You all to hell. (Score:1)
Re:Looks (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something here - Apples still use RAM -- In fact, it's PC100 SDRAM. What makes you think they're not going to go to DDR SDRAM? What alternatives do we have for a big speed increase in memory besides DDR SDRAM and RAMBUS (Which as I'm fond of pointing out, isn't as big an increase in speed as they'd like us to think.)
I think we ought to remember... (Score:2)
That this settlement may very well have nothing to do with whether or not Hitachi violated any patents. Rambus had also accused Hitachi of violating, and in fact practically ignoring, thier 1992 license agreement.
Natch, the details of that agreement are undisclosed. But I think that it's somewhat obvious that whatever the merits (or lack of) of Rambus' patent case against Hitachi, Rambus had a very strong case concerning the License agreement. That means that Hitachi woulda taken a hit either way.
Given that, I do not believe taht Rambus patents will stand up to a serious court challenge, But IANAL and that remains to be seen.
Nephs
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
Offtopic: The sonic clothes washer uses a full tank of water, but only a tablespoon of detergent. The detergent is only there to break up the grease and bind to it, keeping it from reattaching to the clothing once it's been shaken free of the fibers of the fabric.
Anyway, yes, a great deal of advancement HAS been lost by companies sitting on patents, or arbitrarily deciding that they're not worth anything. What they're missing is that many advancements come out of people finding new uses for old technology, or applying something that seems totally unrelated to an old problem, for a new solution. I don't think so much of it is because of the oil companies, but certainly there's plenty of room for it.
Just because someone writes a book on a subject doesn't mean they're right.
Uninformed posters must be stopped. (Score:1)
Who in their right mind would even consider dishing out $500+ for a stick of 600 mhz pc100 ram.
What the heck is 600MHz pc100 ram? You can find Kensington 64meg 800Mhz RDRAM on pricewatch for $237. I don't like the prices either, but you are babbling gibberish dude.
It seems that many companies in the computer industry are set to take advantage of RAMBUS's success. They are just making RAMBUS the evil villan so they look innocent in the price gouging that is going to happen. This is something the memory producers have worked to bring about to actually make real profits on memory for the first time in more than a decade. Ram manufacturers may start turning out intel type profit statements in a year or two..
Re:Hydrogen (Score:1)
HYDROGEN IS NOT A PRIMARY FUEL
HYDROGEN IS ONLY AN ENERGY CARRIER
If you use hydrogen to run your car (instead of gasoline), you end up producing more pollution (in order to make the hydrogen) and spending a lot more money. And there is no safe way to store and handle hydrogen. It is very explosive over a wide range of concentrations.
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:1)
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Perhaps our legislature isn't living up to its constitutional demands, because this action by RAMBUS is most definitely not in the general welfare of the United States.
Congress, take heed!
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:3)
The reason is that high pressure hydrogen is dangerous to work with. If the tank ruptures in an accident, your car goes up like a bomb. The gas station (if you can find one) needs to be able to fill your tank at high pressure. You have the chicken and egg problem as well. You need a gas station that can fill it, and a mechanic that can work on it. (God help you if you neglect the maintenance on your fuel system.)
Okay, I have to pee on this statement now. Berkeley (Well, I think it was UCB) did a demo where the (admittedly expensive) honeycomb system they were using was filled, set in a quad, and shot. Not only did it not catch fire, but someone was able to walk up to it with a lighter and light it. It burned peacefully.
In addition, gasoline engines are, again, a known quantity. Think about rotary engines. In theory, they are simpler and more reliable. In reality, the compression ratio sucks, so you have to turbocharge it for decent performance, and turbochargers have their own reliability problems. As soon as you turbocharge a rotary engine, you increase the likelyhood that it will blow its apex seals. This is the moral equivalent of a ring job for a piston engine.
All this can be designed out, if you're willing to put in the effort. The final generation of RX-7s ended up being pretty reliable, and seriously badassed.
In any case, there are a number of technologies other than the rotary engine that are sweet ideas. Some of them are minor concepts (The Slant six, for example, was just a normal combustion engine, and the Boxer engines are too, just opposed) which give you great dividends, mostly in the area of reliability. Then again, Hemi heads are pretty simple, and tend to make a big difference.
Hydrogen is a great way to go if you can make the vehicles cheap enough, and provide a filling station. The best way to go with hydrogen at the moment is probably with a hybrid, but the real problem is the infrastructure. However, since there's fuel cells you can load with methanol, and methanol is sold at the pump in a couple gas stations in my town of 50,000, maybe that's the commuter car answer.
Incidentally, if you really want to make automotive technology take a quantum leap forward, find a way to defeat patents on SuperCapacitors and make them dramatically cheaper; Then we can all just go electric in a practical, inexpensive, lightweight fashion.
Re:Let the RAMBUS bashing begin (Score:1)
Everybody's favorite hardware source around here appears to be Tom's Hardware... my guess is that his whole experience with RDRAM is using Intel chipsets [intel.com]. Is it quite possible that Intel's way of implementing a RAC wasn't the best way? Much like Cyrix's attempts at x86 domination didn't pan out the way they would have hoped. Was x86 flawed, or was it just Cyrix's implementation of it? In the end, it's just a high-performance (if done right) spec that is going to make RMBS shareholders [yahoo.com] a lot of money.
Info on the patents. Hitachi must be on glue. (Score:1)
Just finished doing a search on the US Patent Office's site (http://www.uspto.gov/).
Here's a link to a patent listing that I found that may be of some import:
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=
If the link doesn't work, go to the Patent Office site and do a search for Patent # 5287327.
Seriously, Hitachi must be on glue. Or at least they aren't investing in any legal talent right now. The number of matches that came up for SDRAM-type technology was HUGE.
It isn't a good situation that Toshiba and Hitachi have folded, but it doesn't look to be a sustainable ruling. Still, stranger things have happened as a result of this kind of legal wrangling.
Sarge
Third Law of Thermodynamics? (Score:1)
Re:Worrying [Rambus/Hitachi] (Score:1)
I don't think that saying every company listed on their Partners page would be interested in forming a huge monopolistic group.
Cases in point:
- IBM made the original announcement about DDR SDRAM. The fact that they were looking for new technology means that they have a preference for anything but Rambus.
- Micron is listed as being a provider. They have been doing as much as possible to avoid having to start building a fab that can handle the extremely tight tolerances that RDRAM requires to throw together. But, Intel has given them a bunch of coin so far
... so they can only stall for so long ...
I don't think that everybody listed on those pages has the best interests of Rambus in mind. It's standard industry practice to proclaim to everybody that you have the support of every vendor, even if you don't - standard media spin.Sarge
Controverse (Score:2)
Let's take an example in biotech or medicine industry. Patents are everything there. It is an ability to reap reward for a huge investment in research. And what is that reward? just an ability to fund the further research! The end of a patent on some prescription drug means that the companies who has not invested a dime (and time) in research can produce the same formula drug and sell it as generic for much less. If some idiot will claim that they should be able to clone it right away because it's a capitalism, I'd say that such approach will destroy every long term research. Another bad side - do you remember how Necro$oft allegedly hijacked the design of the ergonomic mouse from Goldtouch (http://www.domis.com/sample/DOMIS/update/1999/01
On the other hand, there is an issue of Rambus that does not invest anything in the reserch and manufacturing and is pretty much an IP holding shack. I'd say that even better analogy would be with the robber who "owns" a forest a'la Robin Hood and collects his tax from everyone. Most of the software patents fit the same category (Remember http://www.thestandard.net/article/display/0,1151
To finalize, I'd have the following proposals:
1) Put a cap on the licensing fees;
2) Prevent companies from exclusive licensing;
3) Separate real researchers from racketeers
4) And, certainly, not grant patents that are too broad. It means that the US Patent Office should spend more of my taxes on hiring people who understand technology
Re:Hydrogen (Score:2)
No need to shout. Every form of fuel in the universe is an energy carrier, including the petroleum products you burn in your car.
If you use hydrogen to run your car (instead of gasoline), you end up producing more pollution (in order to make the hydrogen) and spending a lot more money. And there is no safe way to store and handle hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a much more reasonable alternative than fossil fuels are, as is becoming apparent now that enough patents have expired to make the technology available for use.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Actually I'm not complaining about that at all. What I am complaining about is a company that is, for all intents and purposes, trying to stifle a new technology before it debuts, through price fixing. If I am not mistaken, RAMBUS is basically a monopoly and they are using that monopoly to stifle other technologies. Mind you, M$ isn't the only company to do this, but it sure does stink to think that the costs of everything that uses or will use SDRAM, especially once it becomes practical to use it in aftermarket applications like gas pumps and the like, will go up purely because RAMBUS is desperate to push a technology that may or may not work--at all costs.
Is that good for the consumer? I'm extremely doubtful. Is it good for technology and innovation? Certainly not.
As has been mentioned before, the best way to deal with the Patent Office is to make sure that we pay attention to appointees in the coming administration--and let our Senators know that we want appointees who understand the delicate nature of technology patents and the issues that surround them.
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:2)
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:2)
Yes, drug research would grind (more-or-less) to a halt. The cost of developing a new medicine is staggering.
The tribute exacted by the drug company is even more staggering, resulting in a net loss to society versus some more efficient mechanism. Drug research should be funded by those with a strong interest in keeping people healthy. Notably health insurance companies.
--
Re:Controverse (Score:2)
I think we need to seriously re-examine how we fund expensive research, particularly in areas of biotech and medicine. What you have described could also be used to describe the life of a serf, or a serf's Lord, or anyone else in any economic endeavor: the status quo allows them to reap a reward for an investment (of time, money, energy). And what is that reward? Survival and tha ability to continue the struggle.
Patents are costing us far too much in terms of lost opportunities, stifled technologies, and squandered economic opportunities. Not to mention the parisitical aspects, such as the tax dollars spent on the patent office, the cost of patent attourneys and the litigation they bring, etc. If we took even a fraction of the cost saved by scrapping the system as it now exists we could probably fund ongoing research in those areas which have come to rely upon it far more generously than they are funded now. However, even if we can't, I think the gains we as a society would get far outweigh the costs.
The patent system as it now stands does not fulfill its constitutional mandate to promote progress, indeed it stifles it. The only two legitimate purposes for a patenting system are to encourage publishing of inventions (so the knowledge isn't lost) and to assign someone with credit for having invented something.
This could easilly be accomplished by allowing someone to submit a patent application with all the necessary specifications, which is the sealed from public view for a period of time (17 year, 20 years, whatever). That person is then acknowledged in the public record as having invented X on date Y.
However, that person is not granted an exclusive monopoly on the invention. The government and the inventor treat the invention as a trade secret for a given, limited period of time, after which the information becomes public knowledge. If, before that time, someone else reverse engineers the invention, or comes up with it independently, they are free to use that knowledge, they do not however get credit for the invention (as it is already registered).
That IMHO is all the patent system we need. Government enforced artificial monopolies are absolutely unnecessary and destructive.
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:1)
--
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
I wholeheartedly agree that the profits that the drug companies make are obscene. Hence the reason I recommend effectively cutting their patent period in half (Currently, they have twenty years from patent application, but roughly ten years of that is lost in testing. I recommend 5 years after approval).
Drug research should be funded by those with a strong interest in keeping people healthy. Notably health insurance companies.
Actually, Drug companies & insurance companies have somewhat opposed interests, so I wouldn't want insurance companies in charge of drug research. Insurance companies make their profits by keeping health care costs low, in many cases, sacrificing appropriate treatment to do so. Drug companies, on the other hand, make their money by inventing new technologies with little regard to cost. A perfect example is the cancer drug Taxol. Initially, Taxol was extremely expensive due to its being created from the bark of a rather rare tree. Insurance companies would have looked at the expense & halted the research. Drug companies, since they are motivated by profit, gambled that they could reduce the costs by synthesizing the rare ingredients, something which they have succeeded in doing. By keeping the profit motive, you assure continued advancement, something that putting drug research in the hands of insurance companies wouldn't do.
And, contrary to what you suggest (and popular opinion) insurance companies don't really care about keeping people healthy. In fact if people become TO healthy insurance profits would probably drop since people would lower insurance on their list of priorities. In reality, an insurance companies main objective is to shift as much health care money as possible into their own pockets. For example, if insurance companies are so into keeping people healthy, why don't they actively support research into natural & alternative medecines, chiropractic, & other preventative courses? In many cases, there is substantial evidence that these programs work, & in many cases they actually work better then their "traditional" counterparts. It's rather telling that according to the WHO, the US health care ranks only 37th in the world (just below Costa Rica, just above Slovenia), even though our spending is the highest (See the Seattle Times [nwsource.com] story).
I should note that I wouldn't be opposed to an alternate system for drug research, but the suggestions you've made so far just don't seem to answer ALL the necessary questions.
Re:So.... (Score:1)
If they were working to wipe out competing tech, they wouldn't be agreeing to license it. They would instead be sueing companies to have them stop producing, and not signing ANY licensing agreements
Worrying (Score:3)
Whatever the consumer choose, he will have to indirectly pay Rambus. I guess this is pretty bad news for us all
So.... (Score:2)
Where is DoJ at times like these? Seems that RAMbus is engaging in some pretty heavyhanded BS to wipe out competing technology. Innovation, consumer choice, price, are all negatively impacted by their tactics.
Is total boycott an option or are they so far into the meat of the RAM industry that it is impossible?
Hitachi maintains that they don't violate patents (Score:5)
Again we have a company that makes Rambus products (and gets Rambus warrents for this) settling with Rambus. When a Rambus prevails over a company that does not make Rambus memory, I will start to worry bigtime. Till then I approach this one with suspicion.
Re:Let the RAMBUS bashing begin (Score:1)
That sounds like a pretty good plan. But it won't work.
Why would Rambus let the royalty stay constant? I find it really hard to believe that they are going to sit on the 2-3% that someone reported was the DDR SDRAM royalty and wait for the public to 'see the light'. They are going to continually ramp their cut on the sale of DDR, so as to force people to buy their product. There won't be any alternative, because the alternative will cost 10x as much as their golden child.
And don't tell me that you look forward to buying something that is far more expensive just because it works better. I can concede to a potential large demand for DDR for servers because companies are always willing to pony up for the horsepower, 'cause they need it.
But not the average 'buying a $1000 PC just to have one' computer buyer. And not even me, although I would like RDRAM to die just as much as the next person.
Sarge
I don't get it? (Score:1)
Ahhh!! I'm scared! (Score:1)
industry dependence, any way out? (Score:5)
For me, RAMBUS is yet another example in a long string of Things That Should Have Failed. Rambus didn't win on technical merits, nor did it win on a better price point, no - it won on the basis of a bad decision by Intel and some legal wrangling. AMD quietly adopted Rambus, and even went as far as to make it so their next generation CPU will not take anything but Rambus.
As a consumer and a citizen of this country, I find this to be a failure in the capitalistic system. What happened to "equilibrium price" and competition to keep it down? It seemingly was thrown out. I blame it on government inaction, but others might blame it on government action - as this was caused directly by government intervention, specifically, a time-limited monopoly called a "patent" which prevents people from developing and purchasing alternatives at a lower price.
I look forward to the computer industry's UniCorp - a single massive company that owns everything, and you "lease" the products it produces and are subject entirely to its own bylaws and contracts. Competitors? No way. And all the while, our government officials and social elite will maintain that this was "the will of the market". No, it wasn't.. this isn't capitalism, this is facism with a different name!
Rambus is Evil (Score:4)
What we will begin to see over the next couple of years are memory makers moving to the Rambus platform. Why bother making other forms of memory when you're paying Rambus for a "licensing agreement"? It's really a form of taxation that we the consumers will have to kick out.
And for what? Memory that doesn't perform much better than the current technology? And at 5 times the cost?
Re:Rambus is Evil (Score:2)
Re:Could you imagine... (Score:1)
maybe a good thing... (Score:2)
Or... (Score:1)
hardly. (Score:1)
Sorry, but I won't be thankful at the idea that they want me to pay 4x as much for slower memory. I'd rather use the extra money on things like burners and gigantic hard drives. (hell, with the price difference between 256mb of rdram vs sdram, you could get a bigass flat panel display)
Re:I bet the direct gains to Rambus are small (Score:2)
And the investors, eventually. The insiders are liquidating huge positions. Their game is to keep the positive press going as long as possible while they cash in. Check this out:
http://www.insidertrading.com/freestuff/search.as
Re:I bet the direct gains to Rambus are small (Score:1)
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:1)
Rambus is making out because they apparantly own the patent for DDR SDRAM as well as Rambus memory. If someone develops a new type of memory then they can sell this as an alternative. It just so happens now that Rambus holds all the alternatives. This is called cornering the market and is illegal. This would be akin to Standard oil claiming a patent on petroleum products. It definitely sounds like they should have a date with Judge Jackson.
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:2)
RAMBUS holds the patent. Period. Regardless of how they cam across the patent, they do. If it's not a legal patent, fine. Prove it. So far, two companies have been unable (or unwilling) to do so. Sure, RAMBUS probably greased them. They've been known to do that. So what? It's business.
Contrary to VERY popular belief, RIMMs are NOT bad technology. It's just expensive technology. And with any technology, it had a downside (mainly the latency). But it's NOT bad. If it were bad, no one would use it at all. No amount of money can make people adopt a BAD technology. Maybe one that isn't as good as it could be, but not a truly BAD technology.
No one believes that RAMBUS is bad. They just don't like the business practices, don't like what it "Might" do to the industry, and don't like the technology. Thus, RAMBUS is a Bad Thing (tm). Cry me a river. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
"But it might be our only choice in the future!"
Bullshit. Another technology will emerge. It always does. If RAMBUS is truly as bad as everyone claims, Digital Darwinism will take over and make sure it doesn't go any further. Sure, comapnies have monetary reasons for making sure RAMBUS succeeds. So what? They'll succeed, these companies will make their money, then leave RAMBUS out to dry. Watch.
All I'm trying to say is that everyone just needs to settle down. There's a buck to be made by all of us here (a LOT of people cashed in on the Intel MTH debacle getting themselves free RIMMs) and no one seemed to care about ethics in that situation. So just sit back and go with it. It'll all settle out eventually. Moore's law says so.
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:2)
AMD licensed RDRAM to cover that base in case thats the way the market goes. As far as their next generation CPU (I assume you're talking about the K8) only working with RDRAM, that's the first I've heard about it. Where did you get that info, do you have a link? Are you sure you're not thinking of Intel's next generation processor, the Willamette?
This is all very confusing (Score:3)
1) What does Rambus own patents for??
-- Does Rambus own patents for all kinds of SDRAMs available? Does this mean that the current low prices of SDRAM are going to go up due to manufacturers paying royalties to Rambus?
-- Does Rambus own patents for the newer DDR SDRAMs so that they will be a lot more expensive than without the royalties? (I saw a comment somewhere that Rambus' stock price went down when IBM announced DDR SDRAM suggesting that Rambus does not own patents to that)
2) Why?
-- Obviously this seems a ploy by intel to get RDRAM memory into the mainstream market. Since Rambus has not too much to gain. Their RDRAM royalties are lower than SDRAM, and SDRAM volume can't even be touched by RDRAM. So Rambus gains very little by pusing RDRAM.
-- If Rambus does not own patents to all kinds of SDRAM and DDR SDRAM, then whats to prevent manufacturers settling on the kinds for which they don't have to pay licensing fees to Rambus?
-- Did Rambus/intel/Sony coerce/bribe/threten Hitachi and Toshiba (Will not provide chipsets/peripherels/CPUs if you guys do not publicly state that you are paying us royalties). This makes Rambus' case stronger. Maybe Hitachi and Toshiba are not really paying Rambus any money (Undisclosed amount), or maybe infact they getting some perks (cheaper prices/licensing fees) for this public announcement.
3) What can we do?
-- What kind of memory can I buy that Rambus does not get a cent for? Obviously I don't want any performance hits. So are there and DDR SDRAMs available that Rambus does not get any money for? So that when I buy that Athelon MB with DDR SDRAM support, I can buy memory without paying Rambus tax?
4) When will Athelon/Duron MultiProcessor MBs come out?
-- Sorry just had to put this one in. If you know then please please please let me know
cheers.
PTO and Clinton Root of All EVIL (Score:1)
Re:"See what Tom's Hardware has to say." (Score:1)
http://www6.tomshardware. com/blurb/00q2/000525/index.html [tomshardware.com]
Paul Bryson
"The shortest distance between two spoons is irrelevant.
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
Re:Worrying (Score:2)
Either way, the onset of DDR memory is going to be good for Rambus and might even let them keep 20% of their company that would have gone straight to Intel. Intel is the real loser in this debacle. The irony here is just exquisite. Intel hoses it's mobo strategy trying to stay cozy with Rambus but loses to chipsets with faster SDRAM and the prospect of DDR which turns out to be owned by Rambus all along, and in the end Intel misses out on the carrot it's been chasing after.
RX-7 (Score:1)
All this can be designed out, if you're willing to put in the effort. The final generation of RX-7s ended up being pretty reliable, and seriously badassed.
And you should see the next generation RX. I had a look at the engine the other day, and talked to some of the engineers too, it will be SWEET. No, I can't give you more details, but I can ASSURE you that it will surprise a lot of people. (Assuming Nippon Denso get their shit together, that is.)
Actually ... (Score:1)
Actually, Gen-3 RX-7 was badassed, but had a crappy quality. I remember a guy who had so many problems with the car that he sued Mazda under the lemon law and won. His site had scores of other owners who had problems too. The previous writer was right; rotary engine does not live much with turbo.
As for the next generation, it will be normally aspirated, and it will be good! It will be a hard choice for me between the RX-8 and the new Z (I have 300zx now).
Oops, forgot to add (Score:2)
To encourage inventors to apply for patents, and give them a competetive advantage, they could be granted a tax exemption for X number of years after the patent is approved, while their competitors (whether re-inventing the wheel or simply reverse engineering it) would enjoy no such tax incentive.
That should be more than sufficient financial reward for being the first to come forward with an idea.
EVERY tech company is an IP company. (Score:4)
http://www.dramreview.com
Don't forget that most Rambus patents were filed in 1990 and the Jedec meetings in question occured in the "mid 90's".
Yes, there were some revisions to the patent applications (which were not approved until 1999, if you can believe that) that came after some of the JEDEC meetings. But the fundamental claims of the patents could NOT have come from the JEDEC meetings, because the patents in question were filed YEARS earlier.
Also, some of the 1990 patents cover characteristics of "plain old" SDRAM. Well, SDRAM didn't appear until 1993, which is the basis for Rambus claiming royalty rights on SDRAM, and which chronology also forms the basis for claims to BACK ROYALTIES for much of the memory production not only in the future but which has also occured back to 1993.
The fact that Hitachi and Toshiba have settled should tell you something: the Rambus case is very, very strong. Hitachi didn't face trial for 2 years, and did not face ITC action until next march.
The Rambus royalties are 1% to 2% for RDRAM, up to 5% for some other items (network controllers, for example). Everyone makes it sound like the royalties are crippling. They average 1-2% and decrease with volume, depending on the royalty agreement and stock offsets. If Dram prices go up 50%, please ask the manufacturers why a 1-2% royalty caused it.
Does anyone realize that for years (and perhaps still) Texas Instruments collected similar or larger royalties on virtually all memeory just because they held some patents on packaging silicon IC's in DIP packages ?
Royalties are not at all unusual in this business, almost all products carry either some cash royalties or some "cross licensing" royalties (in which no cash changes hand because two companies have signed mutual agreements in which each can use the other's patents royalty free).
I'm tired of reading articles trashing Rambus, making them sound greedy and Machevellian for doing something that all high-tech companies do every day. If you are a high-tech company, you ARE ALSO an IP company. It's just that Rambus is EXCLUSIVELY an IP company. But that doesn't give people a right to trash them for collecting a 1-2% royalty on technology which they developed prior to anyone else.
BTW, Rambus CEO Geoff Tate is a former AMD VP. AMD is a Rambus partner.
Re:Patent-free RAM? (Score:2)
SLDRAM, IEEE spec P1596.7.
--
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:1)
The reason is that high pressure hydrogen is dangerous to work with. If the tank ruptures in an accident, your car goes up like a bomb.
Actually, this is not entirely accurate. Gasoline is actually worse because it spreads all over the place and continues to burn. And, will tend to burn out and down as the liquid splatters. Hydrogen burns extremely fast, and burns upward. It doesn't get all over people and objects and continue burning. I once saw this show where they shot bullets at tanks of gasoline and hydrogen tanks. The hydrogen tank had a little high pressure flame coming out that burned upward and didn't touch anything. The gasoline tank had a similar spray, but there were burning drops of gas all over the place. The same thing happened when they blew up cars with the different fuels. The hydrogen exploded violently and then left the car nearly intact, abd with nhardly anything on fire. The gasoline car exploded and was totally engulfed in flames and continued to be engulfed in flames for quite sometime afterwards. So, basically, the hydrogen turns out to be safer in the event of an explosion. The bigger trick with the tanks is filling them, and making them light. DastardlyAnyone designing/making OpenCores RAM? (Score:1)
Re:High speed ferrite core (Score:1)
Reminds me of a joke: Two british fellows were talking over lunch and one remarks "Once in Africa our friend Smithers was cohabitating with a monkey". His fellow asks "Was the monkey a male or female?". To which he replys "Female of course, nothing queer about old Smithers".
Re:Patent-free RAM? (Score:1)
Anyway, http://www.opencores.org/
Re:Controverse (Score:1)
The point here is that many small companies don't have enough muscle to market their production. They do either just a design or design and manufacture. Some other companies don't design their production themselves; they are perfectly happy to license a design and manufacture/sell it.
You'd be surprised to learn hom much stuff in the computer industry is an OEM. For example, go to Fry's and compare some mice models from A4Tech and Micro Innovations. They are identical.
So, there is no perfect system that will protect the inventor and won't stiffle innovation at all simultaneously. But the existing one is IMHO biased in favor of the inventor too much, and this bias need to be lessened, but not abolished completely. Otherwise the big guys will be able to copy everything they like, and every street will be called Microsoft Way
SDRAM not going away anytime soon (Score:5)
Yeah Yeah... (Score:3)
There are a lot of patents out there that are trivial, overbroad or have plenty of previous prior art. We need to start treating abuses of the patent system as fraud and prosecuting companies for commiting it. You could probably get convictions for oh, about 100% of the patest stories on /. over the last year.
who needs rambus? (Score:2)
Re:Hitachi maintains that they don't violate paten (Score:2)
High cost of litigation
What I mean by this, is not the legal costs - both companies have deep pockets. But by the nature of our legal system, it is quite likely (if it didn't happen already) that Rambus could have gotten a preliminary injunction to prevent Hitachi from selling chips. The economic damage from that far outweighs any litigation costs - hence they may have conceded simply to cut their losses. I think this tactic would fall on it's face and never be used if it was mutually inclusive - ie, if Rambus got an injunction against Hitachi, Rambus could not sell its chips either. That would put a severe damper on frivolous lawsuits, but considering the people who are in power in this country, I'd sooner see icicles hanging off the devil's arse than live to see that law passed.
The terms were not disclosed
For all we know, Hitachi might have gotten a very lucrative deal with Rambus to produce its chips while appearing to have been shafted. It is an excellent PR move for Hitachi, and Rambus doesn't need to care about its PR image - just the legal system.
Just a few things to keep you thinking.
~Signal 11, Fuck the Invalid Form Key Error.
Re:Worrying [Rambus/Hitachi] (Score:5)
Yes, Rambus isn't Japanese -- but look at its list of partners [rambus.com] (recently divided up, regrettably into separate pages for each technology)
This system has several major goals: preserving hierarchy and the Japanese business structure (which is very different than ours, with strong, almost monopolistic vertical integration, pan-industry consortia, and many intermediate layers of supernumary distributors), 'maintaining relationships' in the Japanese sense, perhaps most importantly allowing Japanese industrial development in the face of foreign patents (in the early decades).
It is an expression of their culture, which retains very significant feudal elements. It would be disruptive and disrespectful to expect them to instantly adopt *our* values, as if we had some intrinsic superiority. If they even attempted this, to a greater degree than MITI already does, it could massively disrupt their economy and society (e.g. the supernumary distributors are a major part of the economy and cannot be eliminated easily; also, their approach to lifetime career and company affiliation could not be more alien to Silicon valley, where even founders like Steven Jobs leave, compete, return, etc.)
_________________
Intel strategies. (Score:3)
This situation will be a perfect example of why AntiTrust law is outdated and flawed as these strategies Intel is employing will end up making them even more unattractive to PC makers.
Who wants to get locked into a proprietary Slot configuration, memory subsystem and memory chip type when neither the performance nor the price give a significant benefit?
Intel will sink it's component business all by itself, without the DOJ's help.
Re:RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:2)
I'd like to add an observation of my own.
Patents are no longer a net benefit to society.
Supposedly, there was a time when many great innovations would never have happened if it were not for the patent system. That time, if indeed it ever existed, is long gone. Patents are now a net burden on society. The patent process has been almost completely subverted by large corporations - the days when a single inventor, acting alone could come up with something brilliant and be rewarded with riches are (again, if they ever actually existed) also long gone. What we have instead is a kind of a star system where every once in a long while a lone inventor *does* strike it rich, and is held up as a reason why the system should be perpetuated (much like the recording industry). But such tales are few and far between, and seem to be becoming rarer all the time.
Even with a few lone inventors benefiting, the patent system is a net burden on society (can anyone argue this?) Since we are a democratic society (I *still* believe that) then the patent system has only one way to go: the way of the dodo.
The time to tear down the system is now. Will we tear it down now? No - there are too many entrenched interests, almost exclusively on the corporate society. But knowing that the system must eventually die - to recap in darwinian terms: what is bad for society is not fit to survive - we can certainly hasten it's death. Some of us will work from within, becoming polititians, lawyers, businessmen, etc., and gain real power to make changes. Others will work from outside, for example, by ferreting out prior are and exposing technically indefensible patents. The best thing we can do is to make known to our non-technical friends and acquaintances just how much the patent system is hurting them, how much it is costing them in real dollars, and how much it is holding back real innovation.
Does anyone honestly believe that drug research would grind to a halt if there were no patents? If so, then why does open source software development not grind to a halt?
--
Re:industry dependence, any way out? (Score:2)
Buy a PowerPC. Or an AMD Athlon.
Re:Controverse (Score:2)
Agreed. That is why IMHO the pretecting the inventor must take a back seat to promoting innovation. Alas, even if the current system does protect the small inventor from time to time, it often does not. Thomas Edison stole many inventions from others and ended up owning the patents - in his case and numerous others the patent system has actually been worse for small inventors than having nothing at all.
At least without a patent system the person who created the invention would have still had the right to use it (even if, in my scenerio, he or she didn't get the tax break or the historical credit).
But the existing one is IMHO biased in favor of the inventor too much, and this bias need to be lessened, but not abolished completely. Otherwise the big guys will be able to copy everything they like, and every street will be called Microsoft Way
First, the existing system does favor the big guy. Patents are resolved today through litigation, which inherently favors deep pockets, which in turn inherently favors the big guy over the little guy. The current irresponsibility of the patent office only makes this more obvious, with the issuing of numerous, often overlapping or conflicting, patents.
Without a system of patents the big guys would be able to copy an idea from a smaller inventor, but they wouldn't have the tax break, which would be designed to offset that and give the little guy a leg up in competing. In addition, neither would have a government enforced monopoly with which to stifle the competition. Ending up with every street named Microsoft Way is IMHO far more likely under the existing regime of IP law than it would be if such notions were either abolished or at least seriously revamped. Microsoft is now patening file formats, for crying out loud. Can you say "incompatability forever" (or at least the next 20 years)?
I am sure you can cite example where the patent system has worked properly and done good. If it hadn't done any good whatsoever I doubt it would still exist. I would submit, however, that we as individuals and as a society have paid a far greater price than it was worth.
Re:Patent-free RAM? (Score:2)
I have a '99 IEEE article by Cuppu, Jacob, Davis, and Mudge that explicitly says it is "an open standard allowing for use by vendors without licensing fees" ("A Performance Comparison of Contemporary DRAM Architectures"). Also that it performs very well, according to simulations.
On the down side, the same simulations show Rambus performing well (is the Real World Rambus "there" yet?), so maybe it's not to be taken on faith. Also, it looks complicated, therefore probably expensive. And of course, some bogopatent may have undercut the "without licensing fees" claim since the article was written.
--
Re:Any good designs in the industry? NO. (Score:2)
Seems to be working fairly well without it. These aren't supercomputers you know.
Worse yet, none of these damn things have parity on control word inputs.
Uhh, that wasn't an accident - PCs don't need parity as it would only increase bandwidth requirements on an already tight channel.
High speed ferrite core (Score:3)
RANT: Still Think Patents are a Good Idea? (Score:5)
This is silly. The companies are not evil for working within the framework of the law to protect their profits.
The patent system, on the other hand, is evil, if one defines evil to be that which is harmful to progress and the public good.
There are only so many ways to interface memory with data. There are only so many ways to synch memory timing. Each patent provides an entity with what, in terms of computing, amounts to an eternal monopoly. Eternal, because 20 years from the filing date is an eternity in terms of how fast the technology moves. Or, at least, has until now.
I do not think it will be long before every useful method for interfacing one computing component with another, be it memory, mass storage, or what have you, will be patented by someone. Probably several someones, quite likely with conflicting patent claims. What then? No competition, as each entity will have a government enforced monopoly in its domain, which it may cross license to a competitor in the same way Rambus does - at a higher price to make the competitor's (possibly more popular or superior) product less competetive.
Without competition there will be no incentive to innovate.
With less innovation technological progress will be slowed, quite possibly to a crawl.
Then, of course, the patent advocates will proclaim that 20 years from the date of filing is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for a patent, as the technology is still in use 20 years later.
Of course, they neglect to point out that the reason the technology is still in use 20 years later is because progress has been stifled for so long by the very system of patents they advocate.
There is a reason the planes we fly in have 50 year old designs, despite advances in materials and aeronotical sciences. (Only now are some experimental craft finally using comosites and making real progress again -- many of the patents have expired!) There is a reason we are all driving filthy petroleum burning cars despite having had the technology for clean hydrogen burning motors for over forty years. (The oil companies bought up the patents and buried them - only now are a few buses finally burning hydrogen fuel and filling the air with water vapor instead of carcinogens - the patents are expiring.) Now we will begin seeing this same, slow crawl of technology coming to the area of computer science as well - the patent mongers have discovered us, and are locking up all of our ideas.
These areas of research are all characerized by an initial explosion of new technology followed by glacial progress. Not because people are unimaginative, or because all the possiblities have been explored, all the discoveries made. No. It is because all of the fundamental ideas are locked away, privatized into someones property, and further research is thereby severely stifled. Now we have the agonizing displeasure of seeing it happen to our field of endeavor as well.
Patents are bad for software. That much is obvious to nearly everyone here. What is less obvious, and far more insidious, is that patents are bad for hardware as well. In fact, patents are bad for every realm of scientific and technological endeavor: they lock down ideas, lock people out possibilities they might otherwise have explored (and that might have otherwise led to even greater discoveries), they stifle innovation and yes, even economic incentive. One guy gets a monopoly and maybe even gets rich, two or three others with the same idea (and maybe even a better implementation of it) are locked out, and a hundred others are prevented from making their contribution at all.
How much science, how much progress, has been lost to this despicable system? How much better could our lives have been, if only our thoughts and ideas hadn't been treated like land claims in a bad western?