Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Rambus Slammed For 'Judge Shopping' 95

Posted by Hemos from the naughty-chip-boy dept.
Lawrence Person writes: "Acoording to this story on Semiconductor Business News, International Trade Comission Judge Administrative Law Judge Sidney Harris reprimanded Rambus for "blatant judge shopping" in response to Rambus withdrawing its suit against Hyundai after Harris, known as a tough judge, was assigned to the case. Harris also ruled "that if Rambus in the future ever filed a new synchronous patent infringement case against Hyundai, or even any other firm, such a petition must be assigned to his court if he is able to hear it.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rambus Slammed for "Judge Shopping" More

Rambus Slammed for "Judge Shopping"

Comments Filter:
  • Rambus was given the opportunity to defend why they withdrew their case so quickly after the judge in question was assigned. If the judge acts too biased during the case, he gives Rambus all sort of lead way to appeal. I think it is fitting that he hear the next case. If Rambus really wasn't judge shopping, they shouldn't care. I would agree that what the judge said seemed a little biased if Rambus didn't have a chance to explain why they withdrew the case. Pressing charges like that and then withdrawing them and wanting to sue later is just wrong, and that kind of action is what is causing all the focus on frivolous law suits these days.

  • Judge Shopping (Score:3)

    by Gunnery Sgt. Hartman ( 221748 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @06:01PM (#621058) Homepage
    What does the fact that people actually shop for judges (for a good reason) say about the justice system? Shouldn't all judges deal out the same punishment for similar crimes? Shouldn't they all be equal? Justice is blind but she sure can smell that money being wafted under her nose.

  • hmmmm (Score:3)

    by anethema ( 99553 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @05:18PM (#621059) Homepage
    These kind of tactics are typical of rambus. They know and intel know that, right now, the technology if the RIMM's ( sux to get rimmed by rambus:) ) is inferior to SDRAM's technology. Now rambus's only way of making money is to sue for more money..
    Rambus is an IP only company. its kind of a smart way to do things cuz they could have a small lab for their physicists (sic?) and a small office for theyr ceo's. they have almost no overhead. If they win any suits for licence fee's thats just more money to them and all they have to do is sit there and collect it. all they have to pay for is lawyers.
    Now that intel wants to ditch them they are under more pressure to have their income assured with these licencing fees. Too bad for them they ran acrosss Harris, especially now that they seemd to have pissed him off.

  • Actually, a corporation is the same as an individual and is therefore entitled to the same rights. Although it is not a criminal case, due process is still required. There is no clause in the fifth admendment about only applying to criminal cases. I did not realize though that this was an ITC judge not a Federal judge so I don't think the fifth admendment applies anyway.

  • Re:Looks like rambus has been shot down. (Score:5)

    by tshak ( 173364 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @05:18PM (#621061) Homepage
    RAMBUS would be better off doing some engineer-shopping to develop a truely competetive product to DDR-SDRAM.

  • Don't Displease the Judge (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @06:05PM (#621062)
    This rule has been violated by Microsoft, Napster, and now Rambus. In Microsoft's case, it was doing such things as creating a video that was later conceded to be a stitched-together fake. In Napster's case, it was the remarkably two-faced performance of its executives on copyrights, and also the company's lack of a plan for making money ("What kind of a business is this?", one can imagine Ms. Patel saying). And now it's Rambus's turn to displease a judge by backing out exactly when one was assigned to its case.

  • One Click Judge Shopping (Score:4)

    by SimHacker ( 180785 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @06:14PM (#621063) Homepage Journal
    Now Amazon is going to sue Rambus because their "One Click Judge Shopping" infringes on their patent!

    -Don

  • Now, first off I'd like to see RAMBUS burn and rott in hell. I'm sure a great many people in these here parts would as well. The problem is, I don't want any judge, at this time, to believe that. Aren't they supposed to be impartial? AFAIK, what RAMBUS is doing hasn't been determined legal or not. The courts need to find that without having a previous bias. With that kind of power and the appearance that this judge is angry at RAMBUS could set a bad precident and could swing appeals in favor of RAMBUS, which I feel would be a Bad Thing(tm).

  • Re:Good or Bad? (Score:3)

    by Chris Johnson ( 580 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @06:17PM (#621065) Homepage Journal
    A corporation is not the same as an individual: the assertion is absurd. Sometimes the rules of the legal system are absurd: in the event that they are, they are fixed when it becomes obvious that they are broken.

    No person would reasonably be able and permitted to do what Rambus has set out to do: hold an industry hostage by use of the courts as a weapon. Since Rambus, a corporation, is not only capable of doing this but has the fixed intent of using the legal system for vengeance instead of justice (not even vengeance really: for self-interested gain), it stands to reason that the judge will act in the interests of justice.

    I only hope it contributes to a growing realisation that corporations are not individuals, are not remotely on a level with individuals in power and influence, and should be disenfranchised before they end up allowed to practice law themselves, and finally compete with humans to become judges. Is that what you meant when you said a corporation is the same as an individual and entitled to the same rights?

    It might seem entertaining to picture Judge Hyundai stomping on Rambus, until you think about what Judge Microsoft, Judge Firestone, and Judge RIAA would be up to.

    Corporations are legal fictions made up out of the rules of the game. UNMAKE THEM!

  • And don't forget the maxim: "An honest politician is one that _stays_ bought."

    But judges are usually fairly straight-up characters - does Judge Sidney Harris have an email address? I'd like to congratulate him.

    Rambus sucks, and richly deserves all the truckloads of shit they're going to have to eat someday....

  • I was elated when I read this story. However, this is not a major victory for the anit-rambus camp.

    The judge simply lambasted Rambus form judge shopping. It is entirely possible that after hearing the case, he could make a ruling in Rambus' favor. All this does is make it so that Rambus will be more careful with their suits, which makes the above scenario more likely.

  • They can file suits all they want, but Judge Harris would like the "judge-shopping" factor out of it, and just let things have it's way.
    --
    Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
  • How can such a misinformed post get +4? Obviously, misinformed moderators.

    But I agree on 1 point: the judge was peeved, very rightfully.

  • It's sorta like a business-model patent. You could take the oldest profession, rephrase it in terms of a "method", and strap on "involving a computer" and/or "network", and voila! Get yourself a patent.

    --Joe
    --
    Program Intellivision! [schells.com]
  • Not quite. IIRC, in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, corporations were granted personship. This means that they have the exact same rights as a singular person (IMHO this is an extremely bad idea, but that's what the court ruled). So, regulations can be applied, but inherant rights cannot taken away. However, IANAL, so could someone confirm this?
  • ROFL! Rambus just can't get a break, can they?
  • *sigh* What are you, a democrat? Or do you work for RamBus? What you think doesn't really matter. What does matter is the facts a)brought a case up b) dropped it when they didn't get the judge they wanted.

    Plain. Simple. And while you're at it, why don't you read the article. There was no dimissing. RamBus dropped the case - which pretty much makes your statements incorrect. (Hey moderator, what exactly are the grounds for modding up? Shouldn't accuracy matter?)
  • You're wrong to say RDRAM technology is inferior. It isn't. It's just that the rest of technology hasn't caught up with it yet AND it's advantage isn't worth the price. But make no mistake - DDR is just a stop gap measure. As chip speeds continue to rise, there will have to be change in memory technology. Whether that is RDRAM or not remains to be seen. But please, know what your talking about before you make statements.

  • Re:huh? (Score:1)

    by coli ( 64530 )
    What I'm asking is not rather it has been done before, I'm asking where this kind of authority comes from?

    Is it stated in the laws or in the constitution?
  • Actually, according to the article you reference, it was Bush Attorney Barry Richard who made the "the [state] Supreme Court has no jurisdiction" quote, not Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

    ----

  • I fail to see how this is a troll. I was being dead serious.

    --Joe
    --
    Program Intellivision! [schells.com]
  • This is great news.
    It's nice to see RAMBUS get bitch-slapped (well sort of anyway).

  • Re:Rambus... (Score:3)

    by wynlyndd ( 5732 ) <wynlyndd.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @05:19PM (#621079) Homepage
    Of course, they say this now after their failed technical and marketing attempts with RAMBUS technology. Intel lost alot of face. Of course, if those things hadn't happened to Intel, Intel would probably singing psalms to Rambus.
  • Due process is due process. The child molestor was just an example and I understand people are wrongfully accused which is why I don't support just killing them but what I was trying to get at is that a Judge should be limited to imposing restrictions only when a defendant is convicted of a crime. There was no trial charging Rambus of "Malicious Prosecution" and therefore no such restrictions should be placed. Besides, it creates IMHO it's a stupid move because the Judge is obviously bias which just allows Rambus to appeal any case that may goto court further harming the other party involved.
  • "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

    I cannot see how imposing such a broad restriction without a trial can be seen as due process.

    And that's Mr. Mason to you pal...

  • Although judge shopping is not considered acceptable, a litigant is allowed to drop a case. Furthermore, an ITC judge can not prevent Rambus from suing in a "real court." Remember that the ITC, International Trade Commission" was set up to investigate cases in which imports are alleged to damage materially domestic industry and to make recommendations to the President. They are not a "real court." Rambus can fairly decide that it wishes to bring the case in a U.S. Court, instead of within the ITC. In a real court, they control the discovery process, etc. In the ITC, the ITC advocate does most of the work, and the person who originally brought the ITC complaint is basically left out of the loop. I think the judge was just peeved that he didn't get to investigate the case. But he certainly can not dismiss this "administrative action" with prejudice, to prevent a barrier to Rambus refiling the case elsewhere. Thalia

  • From the article: "Harris ruled that if Rambus in the future ever filed a new synchronous patent infringement case against Hyundai, or even any other firm, such a petition must be assigned to his court if he is able to hear it."

    Something tells me this didn't put a smile in Rambus lawyers' faces...

    Trian

  • sounds like my kinda guy, find the backdoor to the bench and wreak some havoc...we need some more guy like this, if nothing else than just in order to give companies like rambutt and their 'very best legal counsel' a hard time as they attempt to screw the rest of us...
  • Well, the case was filed with an ITC administrative judge. That is NOT a real court. So, they can refile in a real court, and get a real judge. Sorry. IAL. Thalia

  • Re:Rambus... (Score:3)

    by Bilestoad ( 60385 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @05:26PM (#621086)
    FYI, the actual patent is for a valid memory read/write occuring on either the leading or trailing edge of a timing cycle. Hence "dual" data rate - you can R/W twice every clock instead of once.
    Most people will realize that this does not exactly double the rate but it does help a whole lot.
  • I wouldn't want to bet on that: corporations have continually gained individual rights over the past twenty years or so.


    --
  • OK, Rambus has not been deprived of life or property, right? After all, they aren't alive, so they can't be deprived of life, and the ALJ has taken nothing of value from them. So, the only thing left is liberty. I strongly doubt that the ability to file a complaint before whatever judge you want is a cognizable liberty under the Fifth Amendment. Whether it is or not, though, Rambus had an opportunity to respond to the allegations and be heard, so due process is satisfied.

    Remember, a judge can take lots of money and/or throw you in jail for contempt of court, with a lot less process than seems to have been given to Rambus here. You don't need a full-blown trial to support every restriction on what might be considered your rights.

  • > Judge Sidney Harris reprimanded Rambus for "blatant judge shopping"

    Maybe they should get together with Katherine "the [state] Supreme Court has no jurisdiction" Harris, and compare notes about what does and doesn't work when shopping around for a sympathetic judge [salon.com].
  • RAMBUS participated in an industry conference when the specs to SDRAM were being established, and walked out of the conference. RAMBUS then proceded to patent the hell out of various technologies related to SDRAM.
    Hyundai, as a major maker of SDRAM, was sued by RAMBUS, which is slowly going after SDRAM makers, suing them on the grounds that they are infringing on RAMBUS patents.
    Many industry observers believe that RAMBUS doesn't have a chance in a courtroom battle, since they signed a statement supposedly denying them the right to patent the SDRAM specs of the conference, and then reneged on that. However, some companies (Toshiba & a few others) have settled for secret terms.
    Short version: RAMBUS is trying to control all memory. They suck. As the CEO of Intel has now stated, RAMBUS believes in making money in the courtroom, and not in technology.
  • Wrong...maybe you're missing the obvious rights to a fair trial. He is following due process, by not allowing the good ole boy network. How fair a trial do you think is gonna happen if you get to choose your judge and jury with the other guy having no choice in the matter. That's why juries are picked by both sides and why there is no choice on which judge, but they cycle. Hey how about this; only go to court if you know the outcome, because the judge is going to rule in your favor unless you have absolutely no case. I guess that sounds like a fair trial. And yes a corporation is considered an individual in the eyes of the law, and it's employees are also considered individuals under the law. This isn't hard to figure out, and yes it does happen a lot, they just got caught because they have no other motive for filing these lawsuits other than FUD. Sounds good to me. Sue everyone even your closest partner(that isn't Intel) have them back down and create some FUD in the other companies. The others backed down because they have stakes in other areas than PC's (consoles anyone?). It's funny I've watched the stocks on this company and a friend (against my advise) bought them when they were shooting up. I'm sure everyone remembers the market blitz and while they are an abysmal failure in PC's, their tactics have them in the market with consoles. It is hoped that their tactics will fail hard enough, because of the competition in the PC market, that it will take them down everywhere else. It will if they don't produce anything other than litigation. Litigation costs money and rarely produces anything other than a loss. It is cool the watch corporate darwinism in action. The weak get eaten (Rambus). I'm sure that Intel left for more than the litigation, because they do enough of their own. It probably has to do with Rmabus's technology plan or maybe lack thereof. You can't sit on your arse and collect royalties(nothing wrong with collecting royalties for your work) and stay alive. It has to be competitive and you have to keep innovating. They aren't as far as I can see. I've probably rambled enough.
  • http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/rev iews/1787/2/?ShowPollResults90=Yes

    This pretty much shows all the tech behind why it's not inferior. And please don't fire back at me about RamBus - I think they _SUCK_ and should be put out of business. But don't smack down the technology - it's the company that has the problem.

  • Re:Rambus... (Score:4)

    by mssymrvn ( 15684 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @07:55PM (#621093)
    The patent is still bogus (though I'm sure you probably already knew that). ASIC designers have been using both edges of a clock for quite a loooonnnng time. Is Rambus now going to sue ASIC houses as well? Why is using posedge and negedge clocks in SDRAM any more trivial than using them in an ASIC? I certainly don't know of any patents filed for ASICs using both clocks. Or microprocessors for that matter. Or PALs, or FPGAs, or organgutans, or breakfast cereals, or lima bean...

    It's just a ridiculous patent (shock - a stupid patent passed by the USPTO!) from a ridiculous company.
  • I'd move to another state ;)
    --
  • Or the Democrats, who seem to be "recount shopping"? If you don't like the count, get another recount! And while you're at it, shake those cards around a bit so a few more pieces of chad fall on the floor! Pregnant chad? Dimpled chad? Tricorner chad? Hell, ask the people who make the voting and counting machines, and even they've never heard of this crap before!

    I just heard that this Florida thing is now being referred to as "Hurricane Chad". Sheesh.

  • I think this is just another sign of how fast this ship is sinking. Really though, they are being dropped by intel right? I don't seem to remember anyone else who was going to use RDRAM in their chipsets. Wouldn't this all indicate that a SELL order is appropriate?
  • judge judy never steps down to corperations
  • Moves like this show only one thing. RAMBUS is afraid that none of it's assertions would hold water in court. Thus the requirement to "judge shop." Perhaps this is a sign that RAMBUS is a lawsuit away from being non-existant? Only time will tell.
  • Please correct me if I am wrong, but I interpret this as Harris has forbidden Rambus from screwing with any other SDRAM producers as well. This would be a good thing for all of us DDR-SDRAM fans who dont want to pay sky-high prices for it.
    ---
    Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of theese?
  • Looks like rambus is trying to play chicken with the justice system. I wonder who'll veer off first (looks like the judge just locked his wheel in place).

  • Ahahaha.... go Judge Harris! (Score:4)

    by isaac ( 2852 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @04:48PM (#621101)
    It's judges like the Hon. Sydney Harris that remind me why I'm leaving IT and applying to law school. A hundred more judges like him could change the world for the better - someone's gotta step up.

    -Isaac

  • Could this be the begining of the end for ridiculous "intelectual property" gambits?

    We just need a few hi-profile IP companies smacked into place before real patent reform is considered.

  • The Real Story (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16, 2000 @06:05AM (#621103)
    Rambus did what any patentee who cares about its patents would do when informed that Judge Harris would be hearing the case: it exercised its absolute right to withdraw the complaint. 19 CFR 210.10(a)(5)(i) says "The complainant may withdraw the complaint AS A MATTER OF RIGHT at ANY TIME before the Commission votes on whether to institute an investigation." (emphasis added).

    Rambus was well within its rights, and I would counsel any client of mine who was the patentee to do the same. Any client who was a defendent before Judge Harris I would advise to cheer loudly.

    A few facts on Judge Harris:

    1) He is NOT an "article 3" federal judge like a District Court Judge. He's an employee of the ITC who has been hired to act as an "administrative law judge." His rulings are appealed to the full Commission, not to federal court. Only the Commission's decision is appealed to Federal Court.

    2) Judge Harris' overriding characteristic is an extreme hostility to patents. I've been before him a number of times and he has upheld a patent precisely once.

    3) So extreme is his hostility to patents that he once "sua sponte" struck down a patent as invalid, even when the defendant had not even asserted the patent was invalid. When this decision reached the Federal Circuit, he was summarily reversed, and has since acquired the nickname "Sua Sponte Sid."

    4) He's advancing in years and mercifully will retire soon.

    5) The decision being quoted here is a classic illustration of just how bad he is, since he has no authority whatsoever to inquire into the motives of a complainant. Remember also it's just his pique that lawyers are beginning to get wise to his bias.

    6) The Commision (to which Judge Harris' rulings are appealed) has reversed his findings of invalidity a number of times.

    7) The fact that RMBS' lawyers were astute enough to withdraw the complaint illustrates again that RMBS is willing to retain the very best legal counsel and is another reason for confidence that it will ultimately prevail.

    ITC
  • synchronous patent infringement case against Hyundai Ok, call me uninformed...but what does this have to do with hyundai? and what exactly does synchronous patent infringement case against Hyundai mean? when i hear the word Synchronous...i ussually think of SDRAM, not rambus. :) someone...please explain what that sentence means.

  • Re:Rambus... (Score:5)

    by jmauro ( 32523 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @04:49PM (#621105)
    Rambus claims to hold a patent over all SDRAM and DDR SDRAM chips produced. Anywhere. Rambus's goal is to force companies to pay fees to Rambus in order raise the cost of all non-Rambus memory. Rambus is just too weak to compete on the open market. Hyundai is one of the SDRAM producers that haven't caved in. Micron is another. Some others have caved though.
  • 2) Judge Harris' overriding characteristic is an extreme hostility to patents. I've been before him a number of times and he has upheld a patent precisely once.

    In my day job I'n Technical Director (CTO in American parlance) of a software company; I've had to take two days out of a very busy period recently to put together our objections to software patrents being allowed in Europe.

    The situation which the US Patent Office has allowed to develop on your side of the water is an atrocious scandal, utterly destructive to technical innovation and of benefit only to parasitic lawyers. Patents are given for trivia, and often granted not to the originator of the trivia but to some quite spurious plagiarist. So if Judge Harris is hostile to patents, that shows he's in tune with the technologists, even if he's out of tune with the venial, parasitic drones of the 'intellectual property' industry.

  • This isn't about a judge making a ridiculous ruling, as in Mr. John Littlguy was using a Nortel cellular phone in Phillidelphia on ... so therefor shall be held for $1M. As he said in his ruling, Rambus thought they were going to get a "corporate freindly" judge at the time they filed, when they were assigned to his courtroom, they withdrew the complaint without showing valid justification.

    His ruling that any future complaints filed by heard in his courtroom is basically a deterrant for what's called Malicious Prosecution - the filing of lawsuits to cause financial harm to the defendent, regardless of who wins. This is actually a "Good Thing" in that too many corporations and their henchmen (RIAA, MPAA, SBA, etc) use this very practice repeatedly against "the little guy/gal" when they figure they can intimidate through threat of litigation and get their way without "due process".

    Futhermore, and off-topic, the problem with your opinion on child molestors is that occasionally an innocent person is accused of such a crime (especially in custody battles after a divorce), and is then found guilty by "due process" even though they have committed no crime. Would ya still shoot 'em?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • But... (Score:5)

    by Sheeple Police ( 247465 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @04:52PM (#621109)
    But it is clearly the "will of the people" that Rambus suceed, for it has been decided that Rambus is better and faster, so no doubt it would win the "popular vote", so I don't understand why this judge wouldn't allow Rambus to trample any opposition. I mean, come on, the people want Rambus, don't they?
  • Besides not making any sense, that was really funny. Rambus has not been popular with either independant reviewers or the mainstream public. Even thier biggest business partner hates them. If you're going to make lame election jokes, make good ones.

    -B

  • Of Course They're Judge Shopping (Score:5)

    by Gefiltefish ( 125066 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @05:45PM (#621111)

    Really now... would you buy the first judge you looked at? Clearly, it's wise to shop around a little bit first. Compare prices. Contrast features. Make sure the judge you buy is a value.

  • Re:Judge Involvement (Score:3)

    by ca1v1n ( 135902 ) <snook.guanotronic@com> on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @05:48PM (#621112)
    Judges make procedural decisions like this all the time. What evidence will be allowed, which witnesses, cameras or no cameras, plaintiff pays fees if defendant wins, or the reverse. In most cases there's a clear beneficiary. The whole point of this process is that an impartial judge takes a case, and lawyers try not to piss off the judge, so they stay away from borderline stuff that might give an unfair advantage. The system balances out.
  • In the eyes of the law, a corporation is an individual entity. Any high school economics class will teach you that. Noone is disputing if Rambus' pratices are morally correct. In my opinion, I would love it if they took child molestors and shot them on site but even child molestors are entitled to due process as is any corporation. This isn't a victory for the little guy, but just another precident that can be used to squash the little guy. Slashdot will be the first place to have a bunch of people screaming due process but if we want to fight against this kind of thing it has to be in a legal way.
  • Don't buy now, they're expensive. Wait until closer to Christmas when they go on sale. It's harder to find a good one then, but when you do the bargains can be significant.

    Last year I got a complete State Supreme Court set for the price you'd normally expect to pay for some loser administrative court law judge.

    After Christmas values can be good, too. My wife picked up several county judges on clearance and used them as gifts to friends and neighbors well into springtime!

  • A corporation cannot claim 5th amendment - AFAIK constitutional rights in the US extend only to humans

    This is incorrect. Corporations can't claim protection under the self-incrimination clause (see Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988)), but they can claim protection under the double jeopardy clause (see United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977)).

    Somewhat more relevant to this case, a corporation is entitled to due process of law. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984). For the non-lawyers, all three of these are US Supreme Court cases.

    So, yes, if there is a liberty interest in being able to shop for a judge, Rambus can't lose that right without due process. However, they got due process, so there's no problem.

  • No person would reasonably be able and permitted to do what Rambus has set out to do: hold an industry hostage by use of the courts as a weapon.

    Can you say "one click shopping patent"? Knew ya could...

  • A fine example that the system can work. Somewhere there's a good quote along the lines: All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Very apt example.

    Now, I'm wondering, has Judge Harris conducted a little tete-a-tete with Judge Luckern, or is this airing of dirty laundry expected to chastise Judge Luckern publicly for being a soft touch? Were I the other judge I think I'd feel slighted, at the very least, by this ruling.

    --

  • I don't think it's his authority that makes this work, it's the fact that the majority of people in the judical system will back him on it because they don't like the idea of a corporation using the system (and them) as a tool to hamper competition.
  • Huh? The comment is not about the case itself at all, it's just about Rambus' misuse of the legal system.
  • Yes, they should. But they aren't. Judges are human, and Humans are hardly ever really objective. This is a reality, and IMO it's a very good thing that judical systems don't deny such realities.
  • Your statement is that DDR SDRAM is a stopgap measure and the article you point is a comparison of SDR SDRAM not DDR - of course it will perform better. However, the inferiority factor takes much more than performance into consideration. Cost is the most obvious, which is why RDRAM hasn't been flying off the shelves. The next is stability - even the review you point to, the reviewer doesn't have the modules side-by-side, he has them spaced. One of the comments to his review asks what the scores would have been if he added more memory. When RDRAM modules are installed next to each other, the crosstalk causes severe problems. This is what caused the initial recall/delay of the i820 chipset - they had to remove one of the RDRAM slots so you couldn't install 4 modules - too many errors due to crosstalk.

    So, in light of these, and they may be others but I just put the coffee on and haven't fully woke yet, RDRAM is inferior technology when implemented as Rambus initially spec'd.

  • What happened to the briber & bribee?
  • As much as this is a good thing, part of it seems scary to me. Corporations do go about looking only to take on cases they think they can win and although this is a problem, wouldn't the solution be to create a law against such a thing? It scares me that a Judge has enough power to put such a restriction on a company without some kind of law to back it up. As much as people may celebrate such a decision here, everyone screams out about constitutional rights when a "hacker" is slapped with some ridiculus ruling such as not being able to use any computer device for x-period of time until pending one thing or another. This ruling seems to go beyond punishment and seems to infringe upon our 5th Admendment rights.

    Thats just how I see it though...

  • Doesn't change the facts. They don't have a valid claim and they are judge shopping.

    And were you suggesting, mister coward, that you represent the ITC?
  • thanks man. I was confused about the hyundai thing....i thought they made bios chips...i think i was thinking of AMI instead of Hyundai. Thanks for clearing that up. I undertood the thing about SDRAM and Rambus's claim for the DDRSDRAM and such...but i didn't realize that Hyundai was involved.

  • It's still stop gap no matter how you shake it up. And a lot of the problems with RDRAM is that the motherboards don't use proper architecture to access it.

    Look, SDRAM technology is going to have to give way to something, DDR or not. Is DDR a great idea for the time being? It sure is - I plan to upgrade to it. Is it going to eventually go away? Yep.

    You are correct that the current implementations are inferior - but that's like saying the car went forward slow because you had it in reverse. Therefore the tires must be at fault.

    Please try NOT to cloud your judgement of the technology by the stupid movements of the company. Or be sold a bill of goods about DDR SDRAM being some kind of panacea.
  • If any one judge were perfect -- sure.

    We just don't have enough King Solomon's to go around, and not everyone agrees on what perfect justice is in either of our countries ... (Canada ;-).
  • I was beginning to wonder how long the legal system was going to let big corporations run the tide of the legal system, clogging it with frivolous and repetitive lawsuits. Rambus needs to be tamed. They have a good product and don't need to strong-arm it on companies.
  • I don't see DDR as a panacea, yes it is an extension of the existing technology, but I'm sure it will be included in any future memory design that comes along.

    Also, as much as a dislike Rambus Inc., my faults with RDRAM are based upon the design of the technology. I'm not saying the car went forward slow because the tires are at fault. I'm saying that when I buy a car with four wheels, I expect to have tires on all of them. To say that this "great superior" technology, when used in my car, causes massive steering problems when all four wheels have tires on them is a fault with that technology. To say it's because the car is not up to snuff is ridiculous.

    Intel designed the original (4 socket) i820 boards per Rambus specifications. When used in the real world, early adopters complained of major error rates when all 4 sockets where populated. Intel then recalled the boards, reworked the chipset so that no more than 3 RDRAM modules can be used, then re-released the i820. That is not an issue of the current implementations being inferior. They were implemented according to spec. The specs were found to be faulty, so they had to modify them to match the abilities of the technology (inferior to what it was supposed to be).

    At this point in time, I can't see RDRAM making any time of progress. Intel is dropping it as soon as they can, leaving only Sony's PS2 as the major implementation (because it's designed well beneath the original specs and doesn't experience the same problems).

    So, yes, DDR SDRAM is an interrim solution to extend SDRAM until another viable design can be finalized. But in light of the apparent short life of RDRAM, DDR SDRAM would be considered a better choice based upon price, availability, stability, and longevity (superior?).

    If you personally get a high for RDRAM, cool! But don't knock others for pointing out it's flaws.

  • What does the fact that people actually shop for judges (for a good reason) say about the justice system? Shouldn't all judges deal out the same punishment for similar crimes? Shouldn't they all be equal? Justice is blind but she sure can smell that money being wafted under her nose.

    If that were so, then we could retire all judges and replace them by computers. But it's not that simple. They have to interpret the law when the law is not specific enough for a given case. Or they have to choose whose answers are closest to the truth. Such things are done differently by different people.

  • huh? (Score:1)

    by coli ( 64530 )
    Could someone explain how could a judge have this kind of authority?
  • Another example of slashthink...Corps are bad!

    Corps aren't *necessarily* bad. What's bad is when they start trying to buy laws/judges/etc, whether unsuccessfully (as in this case) or successfully (as with the DeCSS fiasco). It's a good thing, however, to see that Rambus is in trouble for doing this. Makes you realize that despite recent appearances, the entire legal system is not corrupt after all.

    =================================
  • but these aren't people, they are companies. This is also not a criminal case.
  • As a consumer, I am dismayed by your continual litigation. I have tended to stay away from rambus products for that reason. Now that it has been shown that you are "judge shopping" I will not hesitate to recommend others to stay away from rambus-based systems as well.

    Thanks.

  • yes! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Something similar to this happened to my father when he lived in New York. A laywer in a case against him bribed the clerk to get a more favourable judge. This was brought to the original judge's notice and he made sure he got the case. It's a shame we don't see things like this more often. I guess we don't hear about the hero's in the legal system just as we don't hear about the sleeze. I think there should be a website devoted to reporting issues like these to the public.

  • Re:Good or Bad? (Score:4)

    by debrain ( 29228 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @06:01PM (#621137) Journal
    A corporation's job is not to win litigation, it is to make money, and making money involves risk assessment. The purpose of litigation by a corporation is to further their economic progress, nothing else. If it is probable that they will fail in their litigation, then it is unlikely that they will commit to it since it is cost.

    A corporation cannot claim 5th amendment - AFAIK constitutional rights in the US extend only to humans - corporations can have arbitrary laws forced on them. :)

  • Brazen forum-shopping has become almost a sacrament for American litigants, despite the fact that it is purportedly a violation of legal ethics to do this.

    It is nice to see there is at least one jurist out there who still insists on upholding standards of ethical conduct in the law and is not afraid to throw his weight around in the pursuit of justice.

    I only wish he could have slapped them harder. These repugnant swine with their incessant intellectual property law-based attacks on innovation in the computer industry, ludicrous patents and outrageous claims of ownership of everything under the sun have had their day for far too long, and I hope for a day when they are treated as the swine they are.

    This is a step in the right direction.

  • Re:This judge is full of it... (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @09:04PM (#621139)
    How many Rambust stocks do you own?

    In any case, they _were_ allowed to drop the case. So your first statement is moot.

    What they're _not_ allowed to do is to keep refiling over and over again until they get a judge they like. They're free to refile... they're just going to end up with the same judge.

    If they actually weren't judge-shopping, then none of this is even an issue for them.

  • Re:huh? (Score:4)

    by muldrake ( 171275 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @09:12PM (#621140) Homepage Journal

    Could someone explain how could a judge have this kind of authority?

    Hadn't you heard that judges have more power than God? It's true.

    More seriously, a judge with a valid reason to suspect a pattern of frivolous litigation and forum shopping is within his rights to demand that all further similar cases from the same litigant be taken to his court.

    This is not a common remedy, but it is not unheard of either. It is especially likely when a litigant shows a pattern of such conduct, and is meant to defeat the tactic.

    An instance I can think of is that the famously irascible Judge Manuel Real of the Central District Court of California (most famous for ordering Larry Flynt chucked in a psychiatric prison for spitting at him and showering him with obscenities) once ordered the crime cult of Scientology to bring all cases in the District to his court and no other. He also had a Scientology cult attorney chucked in prison that same day for contempt.

  • Another bunch of Naderistic nonsense.
    What do you think about how corporations are created ??? Each of them can trace its origin to an INDIVIDUAL or group of INDIVIDUALS, who decided to start a business and SHIELD THEMSELVES from the possible failure.

    Have you heard of Eolas (sp?) - another IP mini-vulture? It consists of some Chicago professor who got a patent on what is essentially applets in a webpage, started a company and sued Microsoft. If his claim is denied, he'll simply bancrupt the company and not worry about the cost of litigation. If he'd sue them as individual, he'd have a chance to loose his property if the things turn sour.

    Is he an individual ??? YES.
    Does he try to hold industry by the balls??? YES.
    Does your anticorporate sentiment have something to do with reality??? NO.
    Why ??? Because if you remove the ability to register Rambuses and Eolases of the world from individuals, they will just take chances and try holding the world by the balls as individuals! Some will loose, some will win, most will settle because the current state of affairs in the courts is that big guys have much better luck giving an extortionist a few millions for their ridiculous patent and continue as usual.

    Other thing is that Rambus is much worse than Eolas since they want to collect royalties forever instead of the lump sum (sp?) payoff.
  • I've read your post over and over again. Each time it left me with one impression (and I'm not trying to flame you or anything, this just IS the way your post reads): Are you saying that Rambust withdrew the complaint because of who they got as the judge? Are you saying that you'd advise your clients to withdraw their complaints if they got Harris? And you're saying that this is the right decision on Rambust's part? Are you not, in fact, encouraging judge-shopping?
  • its kind of a smart way to do things cuz they could have a small lab for their physicists (sic?) and a small office for theyr[sic] ceo's. they have almost no overhead.
    Sadly untrue. Rambus has a huge honkin' building a couple blocks east of El Camino. 15-20 stories or so. Lots of room for the physicists, no? They're shoving another one up next to it - then again, maybe they're waiting to see if their business model is sustainable, since those cranes have been quiet for a while now...

    In truth, it looks like the archetypical fucked company with a few good researchers in the basement; and pathetic tech execution upstairs. They are not running with minimal overhead. They look like a suit company who don't themselves know what they need to make the company fly on merit alone, and are now suing everyone in a desperate bid to stay afloat.

  • Nah, the people don't want Rambus, what they REALLY want is for Buchanan to whip up a replacement.
  • Shouldn't a judge who gets this personally involved in a case recuse himself? It doesn't seem that he can be impartial because he's exhibited evidence that he has a bias in the case by ruling that if they ever come to court again for this that they must come back to his court.
  • You posted this on the Yahoo RMBS stock board to. Own up how much money did you lose today?

    RTQ RMBS 61 61/64 down 3 and 31/64

  • Re:Rambus... (Score:3)

    by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Wednesday November 15, 2000 @05:07PM (#621147) Homepage
    Other ramifications:
    Intel has been completely disgusted by the lawsuit. Craig Barrett from Intel said "We hoped we were partners with a company that would concentrate on technology innovation rather than seeking to collect a toll from other companies..."

    -B

  • RAMBUS will go down in history as a textbook example of the old idea- do things right, and do them right the first time, or else your actions will catch up with you.

    They made a technology company, and decided to focus on litigation and patent royalties rather than they innovations. And now they have been caught trying to work around hard judges in an effort to suck more money from other companies by litigation. Intel caught them, Judge Harris caught them, and it is all going to bring them down. Play fair or don't play at all.

  • gamguy
    the rambus technology is superior to sdram just like the new pentium 4 core is superior to the pentium 3 (ppro) core. (read: its not)

    rimm's have to be clocked to 800mhz to offer performance on par with sdram clocked to 100 or 133mhz.
    imagine sdram clocked to 800mhz (if it were possible) it would slaughter rdram in any test.
    mhz per mhz sdram has way more throughput and stability.
    rimm's also need heatsinks and field dampers put on them because they are basically just overclocked really really high. ive never had my sdramn get hotter than a nice 'warm'
    heheh

  • No, he's made it impossible for them to judge-shop. Presumably, he'll still try to render a just ruling in any future suits.
  • Whatever. I give up. You people are as against rdram as you are windows - with blinders on to the facts - it's RamBus, so it must be bad - it's windows, so it must be bad. Your vision is so narrow it amazes me. I don't know why I ever bother to post here. Waste of time. Don't think I'll waste anymore.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close