Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Rambus going after AMD & Transmeta 85

Posted by CmdrTaco from the going-in-for-the-kill dept.
zakath writes "This story on Techweb is telling us that Rambus' legal dept. is still working overtime - going after Transmeta and AMD this time." Well, its trickier then that. They're trying to reach out of court deals, but the article has a lot more info about Rambus and assorted acronyms that they're trying to get money for.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rambus going after AMD & Transmeta More

Rambus going after AMD & Transmeta

Comments Filter:
  • With the patent office, it seems that any new name for the same stuff can get a new patent...

  • New Ram Types (Score:5)

    by clinko ( 232501 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @11:12AM (#742437) Journal
    Top 10 New Ram Types

    10. FFRAM - (Fucking Fast RAM.)
    9. RFFRAM - (Really Fucking Fast RAM.)
    8. OWWIRAM - (Only works with Intel RAM)
    7. NCWACSRAM - (Not compatible with any chip sets RAM.)
    6. STGTLHRAM - (Sure to get the ladies hot RAM.)
    5. FETSTIRAM - (Fast enough to surf the internet RAM)
    4. WKHIWWSYCRAM - (We know how it works, why should you care RAM)
    3. IYHTAYCAIRAM - (If you have to ask then you can't afford it RAM.)
    2. INRFBIHALARAM -(It's not really fast but it has a long acronym RAM)
    1. YPDNMTFBYFWBIRAM - (You probably don't need memory this fast, but your friends will be impressed RAM.)

  • Have a :Cue? (Score:4)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @11:15AM (#742438) Journal
    Are Rambus devices allowed to have :Cues on them, or would there be an Intellectual Property reaction?
  • They'll probably just end up cutting a deal, but RAMBUS has patents on not just DDR-SDRAM, but SDRAM itself! They have some ridiculously broad patents that should never have been approved in the first place; hopefully this will get struck down due to *obvious* prior-art.

    I think it's sad that Intel has these losers around to do their dirty work for them. Remember, "When you can't compete on technical merit, sue!"
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • HAHA Actually i was changing my .sig and then i noticed there was an update to slashdot.
    That link shows that 70% of users of slashdot use windows. see Here [clinko.com]
    but that post i made about the top 10 ram types i got Here [clinko.com]
  • Just what we need in the Ram world with DRAM prices being what they are, another Micro$oft. You think these companies would learn agfter Big Brother Bill got raked over the coals by the DOJ, but no, in the typical I'm a greedy American Corporation tradition, they are going to suck us, the consumers, for every penny we are worth on an integral part of computer tech.
  • thank god that slashdot is even around

    eh?


    ciph3r
    Web Admin/Master
    http://www.penguinized.net
    http://www.r337.net

  • Nice (Score:5)

    by jaa ( 22623 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @11:30AM (#742443)
    This is the incarnation of the perfect business model. First, as RAMBUS, get on the JEDEC committee developing the next version of SDRAM technology (DDR). Next, patent this technology (can you say "conflict of interest"?). In parallel, develop your own proprietary technology (RDRAM). Hire a team of lawyers and sue everyone using either technology. Use higher settlements and royalties on the "open" standard (DDR) to force everyone to use the "closed" standard (RDRAM), since you'll likely make more money on the manufacturing end of that technology.

    Your only risks? Your patents might be overturned. Solution: hire more lawyers, tie it up for years. Oh, and antitrust. Solution: hire more lawyers.

    Ugggh.

  • IF the courts uphold any of this CRAP (which I doubt they really will) then Rambus will get their little settlement and nothing more... everyone's just going to dump the RAM like a bad habit

  • Just play ball, or else? (Score:5)

    by Fly ( 18255 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @11:36AM (#742445) Homepage
    I found these two paragraphs from the article particularly interesting. Because the three companies below have the nerve to try to dismiss Rambus' claims of IP rights to SDRAM, Rambus might withhold licensing of the disputed patents? Sounds as if they are damned if they do and damned if the don't.

    I'm guessing it was said in order to scare other companies from joining the suit against Rambus since they cannot hope to win all these suits against SDRAM makers if their combined legal strength is wielded. "Let those other companies take the risk of not getting licensed. We do, afterall have responsibilities to our stockholders."

    Hopefully, the RAM makers will see what Rambus has done and never, ever trust them again!

    As a result, the company has sued DRAM makers Hyundai, Infineon, and Micron for patent infringement, and in turn has been countersued by Hyundai and Micron.
    A Rambus spokeswoman last week added greater weight to the outcome of the suits, saying that the company may refuse to license any of the three memory makers if it prevails in its court case.
  • Jesus Christ, RAMBUS is the Microsoft of the RAM industry. Put your money on this one Both have inferior shit as opposed to anything else out there - and both are trying to affect all of the computer industry. But while Microsoft is doing it by establishing a monopoly, RAMBUS is actually using the court system to do it. . .

  • Re:RAMBUS Doesn't Get It (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, 2000 @11:39AM (#742447)
    They have some ridiculously broad patents that should never have been approved in the first place

    It's worse than that. A lot of this technology was first developed by a JEDEC working group (of which Rambus was a member) in the late 80's and early 90's. Part of the membership contract stated that members would not attempt to patent or otherwise seek protection for technology that the group developed.

    Rambus, being the highly ethical people that they are, quietly filed for patents on the technology as it was developed; when this was discovered, they resigned from the working group. However, they still pursued (and were eventually granted) the patents.

    It's just one of many signs of how diseased things have gotten that a company can get patents in direct violation of contracts they signed, patent technology that in some cases had already existed for at least a decade, and all the 'authorities' involved basically say "that's okay, if they're clever enough to get them they can keep them and use them to rape everyone they touch; it's just good business".

    I've also seen people who say that even though it's very plain that most of their patents are bad, they should be allowed to keep them because their investors would lose money otherwise. How's that for reasoning? My take is that they deserve to lose their money for investing in a company run by a bunch of crooks.

    Oh, and since Rambus obviously has an overactive legal department, all of the above is my opinion; it should not be construed as fact without independent verification (do a few searches around the 'net; it shouldn't be hard to find ;).

  • Seems interesting that the company is going after chip manufacturers with whom it already has liscence agreements. This would indicate to me that rambus is one of the following
    • Stupid and enjoys goading people it has agreements with
    • Broke and needs cash and settling out of court over the misuse of a comma in a liscence agreement might get it.
    • Has lawyers that like to get paid a-lot and they reccomend suits as opposed to face to face discussions.

    Sad when it can cost MUCH less to pay off the idiot suing you. It's also sad to see the cost it takes to be able to win in a court. Our legal system is so silly sometimes, remember when an accident was an accident and not a settlement? Neither do I.
  • That's nothing new. Drug companies have been doing this for a long time. When the patent is up for a drug put a new coating on, for example to make it sustained release. Then a user only needs to take the medication twice a day from three times a day before. *Boom* new patent and another 20 years of high costs for the drug. Eli Lily's patent on Prozac is about to run out and they are trying to get a new patent for Prozac based on a new coating that will make Prozac "safer". This is yet another reason to change the patent laws.
  • Unfortunately, RAMBUS *does* get it.

    i.e. "When you can't compete on technical merit, sue".

    Remember they're in business to make money. So this is what they're doing. Easy money for little work.

    No, I don't like it. But reading more and more stories like this, I'm actually beginning to feel a little encouraged. A bunch of /. geeks wingeing to themselves on their own little website about how wrong things are isn't going to affect anyone in the outside world. But with big companies being screwed over, maybe they'll decide the current system is broken and in need of reform. And if they do, they won't just winge about it in their own private forums.

    (My apologies to anyone who disagrees with the current patent situation and has actually done something about it, in however small a way - like writing to their local politician).
  • wasn't there some suit with hitachi that got dropped over the same stuff? i can't remember what it was but i thought it was related? anyone care to share what they can spare?


    1. INTERACTIVE [mikegallay.com]
      1. ENTERTAINMENT

  • Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rambus is suing AMD over unlicensed interfacing with their product?

    If that's the case, that would be a direct violation of the anti monopoly laws. It's the same deal as "Ford trucks can only use Ford gasoline", but this time it's "Only our chips (or liscened ones), and use our RAM".

  • Why is it that whenever some piece of technology is developed, some company tries to take possession of it, whether it developed it or not, and sues everyone else? Examples: Microsoft writes BASIC software for the Altair. BASIC was a generally accepted language at the time, but did not have an interpreter for the Altair; GPL; x86 microprocessor design; SDRAM is developed. Results: Microsoft threatens to sue Homebrew; Sun finds a way to get around the GPL; not only did Intel try to sue companies that manufactured x86 compatible processors, they were sued by the remnants of Fairchild; Rambus tries to take ownership of it and either kill it off to profit their own RAM architecture, or hike royalties on it. Am I the only one who sees a frightening pattern here? What's next? A biotech company claims that from its research it owns the pattents to resperation and sues everybody on the planet that doesn't give them money?

  • Re:Isn't this protected by anti-monopoly? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The patents they have apply to the memory controllers (part of amd's motherboard chipsets) as well as the RAM itself.
  • Hey, finally RAMBUS has produced something.

    That is, if you count lawsuits as "something"...

  • This is good (Score:5)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @12:12PM (#742456) Homepage Journal
    It's good to see some high profile lawsuits over bad patents. Too often it's the little guys being hit over the head with patents. Sure, they may be plainly bogus, but if you can't afford tens of thousands in legal bills, you're hosed. This time all the players are on roughly equal footing. With any luck, one of them will lobby Congress to review the situation with patent law.

  • Do intellectual property laws ever work? (Score:5)

    by bellings ( 137948 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @12:14PM (#742457)
    In which industries are intellectual property and patent laws beneficial to the industry and consumers?

    Two industries come immediately to mind -- pharamcutical companies may benefit from patent law, and publishers (of music, software, and books) may benefit from traditional copyright law. Both industries share a number of characteristics.

    First, the initial development costs of both are relatively high. Pharamucital companies claim an initial cost of $500,000,000.00 to develop a new drug, and the development of a readable book, working software, or decent music requires a significant investment of time on the part of the author.

    Second, the marginal costs of production are often relatively low. Once a drug has passed through the expensive approval process, the marginal cost of producing each individual dose is generally many times less than the sale price of the drug. Similarly, once a book has gone through the expensive process writting, editing, and typesetting, the marginal cost of printing is generally much less than the sale price of the book.

    The third (and significant) similarity is that if the use of intellectual property were unrestricted, the majority of initial development costs would only be incurred once, by the original developers (I'm sure economists must have a word for this). Without intellectual property protections, once a drug has been developed and gained approval, no company producing the drug would have to go through that development cost again. Similarly, once a book has been published, no company copying that book would have to pay the cost of authoring, editing and typesetting again. Protecting the initial producer seems to be the primary justification for the existance intellectual property laws.

    But there is a fourth similarity, and one which seems to usually go unnoticed. In both industries, it is possible to create a derived work without infringing on the intellectual property of the original work -- both have extremely liberal fair use laws (or very limited intellectual property protections, depending on how you look at it). For example, Visicalc had a copyright on their spreadsheet's code, but their intellectual property did not extend to preventing other people from creating a competing spreadsheet -- the idea of a spreadsheet is not, itself, intellectual property. I could not photocopy The Shining and then sell that copy, but I certainly could write a book about a crazy guy working as a hotel caretaker -- the idea of a book about a crazy guy is not, itself, intellectual property. I couldn't record "Blue Suede Shoes" and sell the album without paying royalties (and learning to sing), but nothing prevents me from singing a rock-n-roll song about shoes. And, of course, I could not start manufacturing and selling Viagra, but nothing prevents me from developing another vaso-dialator (sp?) with turgidity effects.

    Unfortunately, the intellectual property gaffs we read about every day on Slashdot have no similarity to publishing or pharmacuticals at all, but escpecially to point four above -- the notion of "derived work" in software and hardware patents is being abused unfairly, and the patent office is allowing it to be abused. Many high-tech patents are far too broad, and are a deterent to innovative works. Or, in many cases (like one-click shopping) intellectual property protection has been granted for something with very low initial development costs, but very high marginal costs (the majority of the cost to innovate one-click was probably spent pushing through the legal paperwork for the patent application, and the development is probably far, far cheaper than building large and robust e-commerce site).

    I think that intellectual property rules that allow RamBus to strong arm its competitors this was have a chilling effect on the entire industry, and have no reasonable benefit to anyone.

  • AMD will FIGHT! (Score:5)

    by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @12:16PM (#742458)
    I can guarantee that AMD will fight Rambus, probably in concert with Micron Technologies given AMD's early backing of DDR SDRAM and mutual self-interest. Jerry Sanders (AMD CEO) is a self-described "Cowboy Capitalist"; he won't knuckle under without a fight. This interview [yahoo.com] with Sanders will give you a good idea of what he thinks about people who play lawyerball (almost a half-hour, but fun to listen to).

    BTW, I got the link from The Savvy Analyst [tripod.com], which calls AMD the "Best Stock Available". (Full disclosure: I'm long AMD, big-time.)

  • How on Earth did RAMBUS end up with so many patents on such similar things? It seems to me that when a company such as RAMBUS starts throwing its weight around and pushing its inferior technology on the market, that the market should ignore RAMBUS and get someone else with a better product. But then, RAMBUS also owns the patent to that product as well!

    Who was sitting around the patent office granting RAMBUS a monopoly? I thought we had laws against monopolies in this country. Grrr.

    RAMBUS needs to quit screwing around and let the market run like it's supposed to, where the consumers decide what they want and how much they want to pay for it.

    It is really annoying when companies act as idiotically and irresponsibly as RAMBUS is. Where's the DOJ when you need em? :)

  • AMD has a pretty good legal dept. (Score:3)

    by HiyaPower ( 131263 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @12:21PM (#742460)
    They managed to win all the suits that Intel brought against them and I don't think that Jerry is going to fold his hand just because some bunch of hoohas bring another one. Rambus has to be getting desparate at this point. Intel has all but dropped sponsorship and their P4 chips are not flying very well. If this is where American industry is going with bullcrap IP suits over everything, its going to be a sad commentary. Also if I remember right, IBM has an earlier patent that is perhaps more applicable to the technology.
  • I don't know if IBM makes any memory related chips but what if Rambus went after IBM? IBM probably has enough related patents and prior art to kick Rambus into oblivion with countersuits and such.
  • I recall similar info about the JEDEC membership terms. Yet, if there was in fact a contract which bound participating JEDEC members to forgo patent and technology protection then why has no one challenged RAMBUS' patent claim? Especially the JEDEC members?

    If RAMBUS willfully entered into a contract, either written or verbal, which specified those terms and they reneged on the contract, then I would assume that there is legal standing to prosecute them for Patent fraud or somesuch.

    If I sign a contract saying I will not patent something, then go ahead and apply for a patent anyway and manage to get the patent approved... What are the terms which render a patent invalid other than 'prior art'? I thought the 'prior art' thing was before the approval anyway.. once a patent is granted can it be taken away?

    My head hurts now. Either way I still think we should hunt down the people in RAMBUS who are responsible for this corporate greed and lack of business ethics and have them anally raped by an angry Armenian War-Goat.

  • -1 Flamebait to you CmdrTaco, for posting this story. We know what happens whenever anyone mentions Rambus.

    In online shopping today I noticed that Anandtech now has a Rambus system in their dream configuration. He says that Rambus and SDRAM are approaching price parity, mostly because the price of SDRAM has been going up. Is Rambus' plan succeeding?

    It is probably essential for them to take on all possible adversaries in these legal battles.
  • How big is this company? It can't have that many executives. I bet that between them, AMD, Transmeta, Micron and the rest could probably scrape up enough for some goons to take out Rambus' lawyers and upper management.

    Not that I would condone such an act, or quietly applaud if it was ever on the 10 o'clock news.
    --

  • It's the same deal as "Ford trucks can only use Ford gasoline"

    Or "DVD's can only be played on our players."

    -- iCEBaLM
  • Isn't there a law regarding denial of a critical business resource? I believe it was one of the major sticking points in the Intel/Intergraph case. I would have to believe that not permitting a memory manufacturer from producing their core product would be construed as a denial of a critical resource. Then again, I'm a layman.
  • The third (and significant) similarity is that if the use of intellectual property were unrestricted, the majority of initial development costs would only be incurred once, by the original developers (I'm sure economists must have a word for this).

    Fancy phrase: opportunity cost
  • At least, that's what they said at the Reseller's Conference. I think. Something along the lines of "Yes, we could make Rambus chipsets, as we already have a license." ...

    W-T-F ? If they have a license how the fuck can Rambus go after them? Someone is fucking up, somewhere.
  • Industry executives close to the patent skirmish said Rambus (stock: RMBS), Mountain View, Calif., is in the midst of negotiating separate licensing agreements with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (stock: AMD), Sunnyvale, Calif., and x86-processor start-up Transmeta Corp., Santa Clara, Calif., both of which have been heavy supporters of the double-data-rate SDRAM interface Rambus claims to own.

    Take note of last sentence. I think that interface is commonly referred to as Copper. Why don't these people just give up? I mean they've lost enough money as it is.

  • Where did Rambus get technical details? (Score:3)

    by ckedge ( 192996 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @01:25PM (#742470) Journal

    Ok, I know the standard story being repeated here, they were a member of that working group, patented stuff when they were under ?contract? not to, left group, blah blah blah. And I know that they are currently an IP only company.

    But I want to know from someone authoritative, whether or not they actually did any real work upon which their patents or based, or did they fund work that helped develop the tech that their patents are based on, OR (and these are the most likely ones in my mind) were they founded by other tech companies to manage their jointly shared IP, OR did they buy out the IP from other companies.

    I mean, if they had outright stolen ideas then presumably there would be someone out there who would be suing them, or if anyone else had developed the tech, surely they would have had the patents and such.

    There has GOT to be something that isn't mentioned. I mean, I don't like Rambus simply because they are trying to force feed us crappy technology, but that's a Management thing. Are we certain that they don't deserve to have the patents?

    If that working group was collaborating on stuff, and if Rambus was contributing information but patenting it behind everyone's backs, that's one thing.(*) But it's not quite the same thing as patenting something one didn't develop. And I think in our zeal to hate Rambus ( it's easy to do, with them being such idiots ), we're assuming the worst.

    I mean, sometimes it sounds like a small town telephone gossip circle in here.

    Psst, did you hear so and so was making out with so and so?
    Psst, did you hear so and so was fooling around with so and so?
    Psst, did you hear that so and so was screwing around with so and so?
    Psst, did you hear that so and so was screwing so and so?

    TTFN

    (*) - Ok, we all agree it sucks for consumers and for the other companies that were in the working group that ended up adopting the tech and then get screwed 10 years later paying royalties.

  • The more I read about RAMBUS, the more I'm convinced they're trying to corner the RAM market. Wasn't this the exact reason why anti-trust laws were enacted in the first place?

  • From the same Anandtech article: [anandtech.com]
    Those looking to save quite a bit of money on their motherboard and memory should definitely take a look at the 694D Pro, but since this is a dream system, we'll go with the slightly faster i840 despite the large price premium.
    The price premium is still around 30%-60%, [mushkin.com] for RAM which is usually slower. [semibiznews.com]
    --

  • uh, they DO get it: Ethics out, Patents in, = $!! (Score:4)

    by kbonin ( 58917 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @01:51PM (#742473)
    Its the modern way. According to modern business and patent practices, they did great. Their stockholders love them, the lawyers are happy, just us consumers picking up the tab, as usual, and we don't count where it counts.

    The patent office doesn't want to reform anything, that would mean fewer patents and fewer fees. The legal system doesn't want to reform, that would mean less laws and/or less lawyers. The companies don't want to reform, most are just pissed they didn't think about this first and are busy looking for a scam they can pull...

    Until "unethical" behavior is punished, the rest is just standard practice of playing games with legal language and looking 'for angles'.

    If JEDEC members don't sue the *&^@#%#@ out of RAMBUS for fundamental violation of the spirit, if not the letter of their agreements, its over. The modern patent system just makes it easy to collect.

    What I want to know is, why didn't JEDEC do anything substantial???!?
  • All of these Crooks... "We the people" work for them and make there money. Knowing the history of M$, Rambus, Amazon, and the rest of the BIG Business Idiots. What does the IT field have morals, *NO* we work off money too. That is why these companies get away with it!!! When you turn down or quit a job because your morals are more the your wallet then maybe things will change.

    Sorry for the rant.

    atto
  • Q: RAMB*S
    A: Ramb*s, A Mere Buncha *tter Shit.

  • Press Release: Rambus' to Screw Industry for Cash (Score:5)

    by Amoeba ( 55277 ) on Saturday September 30, 2000 @02:22PM (#742476)
    Rambus Announces World's Fastest Revenue Generating Technology and Unveils HUGE Set of Brass Ones

    Multi-Level Industry AnalRape Technology Capable of Extortion Revenue Transfer Rate of $1.6 Billion per Second

    Santa Clara, CA - September 30, 2000 - Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS), the leading provider of high bandwidth lawsuit-generating bogons, today unveiled its new multi-level AnalRape technology at the end of a 3-day executive offsite beerfest. The Legal AnalRape Torture (LART) technology enables Cease & Desist transfer rates of 1.6 Lawsuit Announcements per second (Laps), twice Rambus' current AnalProbe technology and four times the fastest demonstrated Digital Convergence devices.

    In 1992, Rambus increased the rate of conventional legal larceny tenfold by locking the billable clock rate of their lawyers to 120hours/wk and then increased the clock rate by a factor of five the next year by transferring a gram of crack to each cube per clock cycle. The Rambus AnalProbe Engine (RAPE) accomplishes the transfer of two grams per clock cycle and is commonly referred to as double donged reaming (DDR) technology. Today, Rambus has again pioneered high-speed extortion and larceny with its breakthrough multi-level LART technology. LART combines the patented double donged reaming (DDR) technology along with multi-level ethical breaches to transfer four grams per clock cycle in order to achieve unprecedented commodity C&D rates of 1.6 Laps.

    "Toshiba has gotten LART from Rambus and we are to deliver insane amounts of crack to them or else," said Yasuo Morimoto, president and CEO, Toshiba Corporation Semiconductor Company. "Toshiba is the leading technology supplier to the consumer and communications memory markets and we shouldn't have to take this shit. Unfortunately Rambus' huge pair of brass balls make me feel warm & squishy."

    "Our development team has produced test business models that have proven the technology is stable and producible and we are now ready to fuck with partners and plant this fabulous technology right in their nuts," said Dave Mooring, President of Rambus Inc during . "Rambus' objective is to stifle innovations that will kill the semiconductor and systems industries. Once our objective has been reached we will have a monopoly in place that Bill Gates would envy. We are pleased to continue our role in screwing the industry in memory and chip connections technologies."

    When asked for further comment Mooring cackled, "I'm gonna be rich! RICH! You hear me you bastards?! I got the 3l337 business model. I know Lawyer Kung-Fu. I wi11 0wn y3w!" and then proceeded to pass out face-down in a pool of his own vomit.

    meebs

  • 1.something about patent law makes that fact immaterial (I'm betting this is it)

    I'm betting you'll win! The two issues are seperate. JEDEC has a choice between suing for the breech of contract or trying to invalidate the patent based on prior art. The patent office only (on it's best day) cares about the invention and it's novelty. It's up to the courts to enforce contracts against the application or to determine ownership in a dispute.

    All of the options run the risk of encountering legendary U.S. courtroom idiocy and effectively freezing them out of the U.S. market (since if Rambus can manage to win the lottery in court, it won't license to the plaintiffs).

  • Yes - I ordered the 649D system. :-)
  • What does RAM stand for?

    (sorry...I couldn't help myself). :)
  • I wish I had mod points, that kicks ass
  • Well, its trickier then that.

    Learn how to spell.

    --
    Let's not all suck at the same time please

  • I don't think that is quite right.

    The opportunity cost of a choice is the forgone value of the next best choice.

    In this case, I would say that the competing firms face a zero transfer cost for the information. That said, I only studied econ for 5 years. I am by no means an expert.

    I can't think of ever seeing a word in any journal that precisely defined "initial entity bears full cost burden, additional entities bear zero cost burden".

  • Killing the Golden Goose (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If JEDEC members don't sue the *&^@#%#@ out of RAMBUS for fundamental violation of the spirit, if not the letter of their agreements, its over.

    I want to emphasize this bit - and it's the bit to emphasize to politicians. If RAMBUS stole this technology from JEDEC in violation of a contract, but the wronged parties are afraid to sue, the system is broken and rewards lawsuits but not actual research. The market is bound to take note, and innovation will (at the least) slow.

  • Yes, when it was not sure whose processesor was going to prevail pre-ibm pc days, they cross-liscensed each others stuff. Intel thereafter took every opportunity to try and get out of the agreement after their processor was adopted. In the 386 suit, the judge found for AMD and awarded them everything that he could and then made the statement that he wished he could give them more because of Intel's bad faith.
  • Back around 1990, Rambus had an IDEA, and it was their IDEA, reasonably original, and they filed for a patent on it, and went around trying to sign people up to license it. There were some sort of lawyer-troubles, and that application ended up getting abandoned, but not before it was continued in 1992 with another, similar application.

    In this time, they also began attending the JEDEC meetings, notably where the SDRAM standard was being hammered out. Sometime around 1993 to 1995, Rambus left JEDEC.

    Also about 1995, the 1992 patent issued, but not before Rambus filed several more continuations and divisions against it. Those applications began the 'drift' toward SDRAM and DDR.

    There were further continuations and divisions against those patents, reinterpreting the original art to look even more and more like SDRAM and DDR.

    Finally, around the end of last year, patents sufficiently SDRAM/DDR-like began to issue, and that's when the fun began.

    AFAIK, Rambus art NEVER played a role in the design of the SDRAM or DDR standards. Read the original *teachings* of one of these patents, and then read the claims, and you'll see a real sttrrreeeeaaaatttcch in there to get the coverage.

    The 1990 and 1992 patents weren't bad. The later derivations are an abuse of the system, IMHO. Oh, IANAL too.

    There's even more to say, but I'm not even going to post that, even anonymously. What I've stated here is reasonably common knowledge to one skilled in the art. Further insights cannot be posted at all.

    Oh, let me clarify one point. A "continuation" can only put new claims against old teachings, and maybe add clarification. No new teachings are allowed - that becomes a "continuation in part". A "division" is where you put new claims against *some* of the old teachings. The sleazy trick of all this is that patent protection begins on the date of original filing, and ends 17 years after the final issue. So it's a way to make a patent last well beyond it's lifetime. I've had a lawyer tell me, "I can keep that application in office actions for YEARS, if needed!" (In order to extend the protection term. Luckily, in the past few years there was some reform passed to limit protection to (IIRC) 21 years after the first application, just to stop this kind of thing.

    But in the case of the Rambus patents, the original teachings have to contain all material claimed later.
  • ..for a buisiness method patent yet? Once that's approved, you could give Rambus a taste of their own medicine...
  • There has to be something that can stop Rambust from consuming the entire computer world with its cursèd hands. Perhaps there should be a litigation against them that their patents should be null and void due to their vagueness. Any lawfirms game enough to undertake this would certainly get my stamp of approval.
  • >RAMBUS is the Microsoft of the RAM industry

    That would imply that they have a profitable product. Right now they're just a tool of Intel. Notice that Intel is actually offering RDRAM rebates to lower the cost of P4s when they come out.

    I'll agree that both have some sleazy business practices, but the embrace, extend, and extinguish model is a far cry from the patent and sue model, which is really a tool of the supporting company, Intel.
  • And all the comp. sci. teachers will perform ritual beatings on people who claim their ISP is Netscape.
  • Actually the patenting of drugs was reworked back in the 80's. Because of the long wait between the granting of the patent and the permission to sell a drug Congress reworked the law. The way the system works is a patent is granted for a drug that lasts 17 or 18 years (I forget how long). Then some years later after all the studies are done the drug is allowed to be sold. The company usually has 5-10 years of monopoly on the market. When it's time for a patent to expire the drug maker gets to do everything possible to extend the patent. It was planned that way. If a new patent isn't granted the first company to get a generic to market gets a six month monopoly for the generic version. Then after six months all generics are allowed. It's a pretty good system considering there can be a 10 year delay from the granting of a patent until a drug goes on sale.
  • This is just another lame attempt by Rambus to control the memory market as they tried to do a couple of years ago. They've realized nobody is going to buy their over-priced memory that has no significant performance increase over much cheaper SDRAM and that since the memory industry is developing an alternative, DDR SDRAM, the high-speed memory market may become constrained for them.
  • Rambus' problem is that all their lawyer's behavior switch is set to evil, the defualt setting. Leaving things on their default setting is such a common problem, right CmdrTaco?
  • since you'll likely make more money on the manufacturing end of that technology.

    Just as a little aside, Rambus doesn't manufacture anything. Nothing. They hold intellectual properties on most forms of RAM (due to that nasty JEDEC business), but they only control the ability to manufacture their ideas.

  • WTF, before you know it they are going to start suing people who even have an idea for a new form of memory. "what you are going to develop a new form of ram, nope sorry you are going to owe us royalties on it, we have already patented the concept of computer memory."
  • I believe that's the basis for the Micron countersuit.
  • Now that they are targeting companies that support DDR DRAM where will it stop? Since they are looking at AMD and Transmeta what is stopping them from looking at other companies such as VIA, nVidia, and SiS who use or support DDR DRAM on their own products.

    This whole thing with Rambus and their patent claims is really getting out of control. This monster needs to be squashed once and for all.

    Taddeusz

  • > ..filed several more continuations and divisions..
    > .. reinterpreting the original art to look even more and more like SDRAM and DDR.
    > The sleazy trick of all this... it's a way to make a patent last well beyond it's lifetime.
    > in the case of the Rambus patents, the original teachings have to contain all material claimed later.

    Thanks for the info AC. I'd sure like to be able to listen in on all the discussions (arguments) between the engineers, lawyers, and bean counters at all the places Rambus has/is-trying-to collect royalties. I bet it's tons more frustrating than the simple engineer/marketing issues I've seen (medium size firm).

  • Competition in idea space (Score:3)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Saturday September 30, 2000 @07:53PM (#742498)
    The trend in the U.S. seems clear: the definition of "intellectual property" is broadening, and the restrictions placed on the general public as a result are increasing. This will probably continue, and this means that it will get more difficult to invent anything in the U.S. as the density of the IP minefield soars out of control.

    But (counter to the beliefs of U.S. politicians), the U.S. isn't the only technologically adept country in the world, and while many other countries are following suit (most of Europe, for instance), not all of them are. I don't know, but perhaps Brazil might provide some competition in ideaspace. China could also, though it has other problems that currently yield the same basic stagnation that we will (more likely than not) see in the U.S. over time.

    But the point is this: if the U.S. continues on this course, one of two things will happen: either the U.S. will get its ass kicked in the global marketplace as people in other countries invent things that can't be invented in the U.S. because nobody will bother to try, or technological improvement will grind to a halt worldwide.

    Unless the latter happens, people in the rest of the world will be able to enjoy the benefits of non-U.S. developments while people in the U.S. will not, since U.S. patents govern commerce in the U.S. only, not elsewhere.

    As an example that's relevant to this discussion, people in countries outside the U.S. will be able to purchase and use systems that make use of DDRSDRAM for cheap, because they won't be forced to pay the patent tax that people in the U.S. will have to pay: that tax will obviously be placed on goods in the U.S. in such a way as to make RDRAM more "economical" in the marketplace, and the end result is that people in the U.S. will be stuck using inferior equipment. Which will make businesses in the U.S. less competitive in the global marketplace. Certainly U.S. suppliers of computer equipment will be at a significant disadvantage in the non-U.S. marketplace relative to their foreign counterparts.

    I want to see the companies in the U.S. get hurt where it counts, in the pocketbook, as a direct result of their own selfish greed and stupidity. But unfortunately, it's more likely that technological development worldwide will grind to a halt as the rest of the world follows the U.S. down the hole to hell.

    Interestingly enough, it may be corporate stupidity, and not physics, which revokes Moore's Law....


    --
  • ...if there was in fact a contract which bound participating JEDEC members to forgo patent and technology protection then why has no one challenged RAMBUS' patent claim? Especially the JEDEC members?

    This is, in fact, one of the principal claims in Micron's suit against RAMBUS.

    ---

  • >RAMBUS is the Microsoft of the RAM industry

    That would imply that they have a profitable product. Right now they're just a tool of Intel. Notice that Intel is actually offering RDRAM rebates to lower the cost of P4s when they come out.

    I don't think Intel is driving this -- I think they're the first victim of RAMBUS, since they bought the hype and signed onto an agreement which requires they push RAMBUS and no other for several years.

    They have had their fill of RAMBUS and its problems, and would get out from under that albatross if they could. The RDRAM rebates are a valiant (but probably doomed) effort to increase the production and therefore decrease the cost of the memory... not that it helps, when they can't even get the P4 out themselves! :)

    Why else would they give VIA and AMD the information to produce DDR DRAM-compatible chipsets for their products? They won't sell anything much if it only works with RDRAM... so to maintain at least some sales, they have to help their competitors... best of a bad situation...

    ---

  • The price premium is still around 30%-60%, for RAM which is usually slower.

    The i840 chipset has two RAMBUS channels (which the article points out) and interleaves memory access, so in this case it is actually faster than SDRAM. (But maybe not faster than DDR DRAM.)

    ---


  • There is a simple answer to the problem of computer companies who litigate heavily. Don't buy the companys' products. The readers of Slashdot represent a large percentage of the people who would influence those buying decisions.

    It doesn't make good business sense to buy from a company with methods heavily weighted toward lawsuits.

    At one time .ARC was the most popular PC compression system. Then the .ARC company litigated, and everyone decided to use .ZIP compression. Now .ARC is mostly forgotten.
  • That made me laugh so hard I cried! :-)
  • Bit of a strange long term business tactic really. Sue everyone who uses your stuff, screw everyone who deals with you and watch the cash roll in. Who would continue to do business with someone like that?

  • What stunts is RAMBUS pulling meanwhile? (Score:3)

    by gotan ( 60103 ) on Sunday October 01, 2000 @03:40AM (#742505) Homepage
    The industry should pay close attention to Patents RAMBUS is currently applying for, to avoid the same hassles for future memory/bus technologies. Since the Patent Offices appear to be incompetent the industry should fight those Patents before they are granted. Had the memory-industry kept an eye on patents relating to memory technology and fought them when there still was time, the whole thing might have cost them much less. I see no reason to let RAMBUS lay claim to technologies crucial to future technologies if it can be avoided.

  • Let's see:

    Rambus sues AMD

    Intel just stopped being investigated by FTC

    Intel is a large investor in Rambus

    Coincidence, or not?

  • Irony (Score:2)

    by FFFish ( 7567 )
    Isn't it deeply ironic that any number of industry and political folk are spewing on about how "harming Microsoft will destroy the economy!", while at the same time Rambus gets to beat the shit out of everyone involved in building some of the core hardware components?

    Ya wanna see harm to the industry, see what happens when some asshole causes prices to double because they control key technology.

    Oh... waittasec. With the exception of Micron, Rambus is hurting Asian companies. No wonder it's okay with the politicians.



    --

  • Rambus' legal department? (Score:3)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Sunday October 01, 2000 @06:32AM (#742508) Homepage Journal
    "Rambus' legal department" ??

    Isn't that redundant?
    --
  • That would be "it's", so why don't you leave him alone?
  • Well, there are certain anti-trust laws that would prevent a patent holder from out-right refusing to license their technology -- barriers to free trade, anti-competitive business practices, "collution" with licensees, unlawful weilding of monopoly power... HOWEVER, that doesn't mean they cannot find other ways to prevent licensing to any distinct party.

    Please remember, patents are monopolies. They are supposed to be a form of protection for the inventor so just anyone cannot take your work and sell it as their own. RAMBUS seems to have found the perfect method for screwing inventors (JEDEC) and getting away with it. Once granted, it's very hard to overturn a patent. The other JEDEC members can certainly sue for contract violation(s), but that will not make the patent go away. Unless the other JEDEC members can prove RAMBUS patented technology they did not develop, the patent will stand.

    JEDEC is at fault here for not patenting their technology and thus preventing any individual member from applying for a patent. Of course, then we end up with a DVD CCA clone...
  • Put your name against software patents

    That petition is needlessly limited. Patents are harmful to every industry and every product they touch, be it software, hardware, pharmaceuticals, or anything else. The harmful impact of software patents are most obvious to us because we are familiar with the industry, and can remember a time when they either didn't exist at all, or had a smaller impact.

    Patents harm every other area of intellectual endeavor just as badly, but we tend to see it less redilly in no small part because it affects us less directly, and because no one remembers a time when new knowledge about, say, a hydrogen fuel cell, could emerge into the market immediately and spawn a whole new series of quick inventions. Why? Because for the last 200 years in this country (and longer elsewhere) this hasn't been the case -- we've had generations to get used to the slowdown of technological progress the patent system inflicts upon us. Indeed, most of us never question the slow pace of progress with respect to automobiles, airplanes, or power generation -- we've lived with artifically restrained technological progress all our lives. It is only the threat to the one area, software, which had been free to progress and evolve at as fast a pace as new, unfettered ideas would allow, that the harm becomes obvious. We have a unique opportunity to wake up, question, and perhaps even change the entire paradigm. If we don't, how much time do you think will pass before people become used to the slow change in computer software, as new ideas (many obvious, some not) get locked up for twenty years at a time (then renamed, and locked up again).

    The patent office doesn't need to be reformed or revamped. It needs to be shut down. Period.

    Perhaps, if and when people start pondering and waking up to the destructive impact so-called intellectual property laws have, then maybe, just maybe, something will be done about it.

    Of course, a constitutional amendment banning patents and copyrights isn't something we can hope for any time soon, more's the pity.
  • This doesn't necessarily apply here. We are not actually buying Rambus products when we buy RDRAM. We are merely buying technology based on licenses from Rambus. I don't own any RDRAM and never plan to. Rambus is going to get their money from those companies anyway through the licensing of their technology. By not buying any RDRAM it merely hurts the RAM companies themselves, such as Micron.

    Then again RDRAM production isn't the only product of these companies. To boycott RDRAM would cause those companies to scale back their production of RDRAM and raise the prices of Rambus based products.

    I believe ZIP won at the time because of it's technical merits. ARJ and RAR have better compression techniques than ZIP but it is now ubiquitous and is hard to remove from the top. We can't let this happen with Rambus.
  • Not necessarily to kill it off, but to at least get a finger into everyone's pies to ensure a steady stream of revenue if their own idea failed to make it.
  • Their current licensing agreement most likely only covers Rambus's RDRAM memory, not the SDRAM and DDR SDRAM that Rambus now claims fall under its patents.
  • I thought the issue for typical applications (like games) was _latency_. RDRAM has significant latency compared to SDRAM that only gets worse when you put more RAM into your system.

    A few applications needs alot of RAM being moved, but for more responsive applications latency will be more important.

    Yes, RDRAM is propbably more efficient for some uses, ie big matrix calculations. But not for typical desktop use.

    - Steeltoe
  • Umm, after some thinking. A system like the i840 might get lower latency too. I'm not sure, and don't have time to dig into the matter now.

    It's EXPENSIVE though...

    - Steeltoe
  • OAM - (Ordered Access Memory)
    IAM - (Inline Access Memory)
    RAM - (Restricted Access Memory)
    NAM - (No Access Memory)
    RJPRAM - (Ram-Jet Powered RAM)
    SSRAM - (Slow Speed RAM)
    RDRAM - (Really Devious RAM)
    RDRAM - (Random Defects RAM)
    RDRAM - (Riktigt Dåligt RAM)

  • Seriously, I'll do it. They're *stopping* technology in the name of their own greed. Nothing flies in the face of the intent of technology more than this. They don't even *do* anything. They just enforce IP. They don't contribute to the community from which they take. So yeah, I'll do it. I don't own a gun or have any kind of weapon, but I can use my bare hands.
  • I thought the issue for typical applications (like games) was _latency_. RDRAM has significant latency compared to SDRAM that only gets worse when you put more RAM into your system.

    Right on both points -- but the i840 gets around the latency issue by interleaving access to the RDRAM alternately through the two channels, effectively cutting latency in half. That doesn't address the "more RAM" scaling issue, however, which is why Intel is reportedly producing its server boards with SDRAM support instead of RDRAM.

    Yes, RDRAM is propbably more efficient for some uses, ie big matrix calculations. But not for typical desktop use.

    Right again... and this point has been well-taken by the buying public, has it not? ;) Poor Intel -- they swallowed the hook and most of the line!

    ---

  • ahh... your making a invalid assumption. you assume that "normals" care... they dont! they are just consumers, they consume industry propaganda ("see ours is better and costs the same... DONT LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTIN!!") and whatever products that propagande says to. WE all know that rambus is full of a bunch of people who would sell the mother for a three doller bill, but THEY *point to the crowds of sheeple starting back blankly* dont know or care.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close