Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

RAMBUS Taking SDRAM Patent To Court 138

Posted by Hemos from the boycott-rambus dept.
fdiskne1 wrote to us with the news from C|Net concerning out litigious 'lil buddy RAMBUS [?] who's got the SDRAM patent in Court right now. Because, hey, if what you are making sucks, why not go out and sue everything that moves? Excuse my editorial feeling on this, but it seems like everytime I see Rambus in the news, it's not for a new technology, it's because they are suing someone. Erg. Now I'm cranky. Time for more coffee. Anyway, the article is the pretrial highlights of the Micron/Hitachi vs. Rambus suit. Interestingly, although Rambus is supposed to win, if they lose, they lose all the royality money. And if you read the article, there's some more trouble brewing for Rambus.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RAMBUS Taking SDRAM Patent To Court More

RAMBUS Taking SDRAM Patent To Court

Comments Filter:
  • I think that editorial commentst within the blurbs is part of the charm of the weblog phenomenon. More could be accomplished by raising the quality of the blurbs than by attempting to fake neutrality.
  • On the other hand, Rob also used to fix major Slash code problems infrequently, and only had a few thousand of us whiny users to deal with. You make your tradeoffs. Roblimo put it like:

    "The only reason Rob Malda has stopped responding to most comments and emails is overwhelming volume. Go add up the total number of reader-posted comments on Slashdot in the average week.

    Then add another 500+ emails per day."

    On the other hand, you have to wonder if the editors aren't secretly afraid of having their comments moderated like everybody else...
  • A patent application is kept at strict confidence with the Patent and Trademark office until it actually issues, and there are plenty of ways to cause a patent to delay issuance until the optimal time - in Rambus' case, after the standards were approved. There should have been (wasn't there?) a clause in the standardization contract prohibiting this kind of scam, and this may be one angle of a legal action. The other companies involved also have a very ligitimate grievance for what were misrepresentations by Rambus, and they can also bring up the question of invention and design ownership, as it may actually have been the standards committee who invented the technology, not Rambus. But I think you're completely wrong in assigning any blame whatsoever to the JEDEC - there was NO WAY they could have known there was a pending patent at the time. As for the description of a standards committee meeting in a 'dark, smoky room', this kind of image is completely false. Standards are something created openly, and for the benefit of the industry as a whole. This is Rambus' transgression, and noone else's.
  • Turn off java and javascript, Netscape hadn't crashed in weeks when I stopped using it and switched over to Mozilla (which rarely crashes nowadays)
  • It would seem to me that a company that can't seem to produce a good product and looses money on the products they do make and turn to stealing it from other companies by questionable practices doesn't deserve to get anything.

    Basicly the way I see it is that they want to get paid for something they don't even make. And the end result of that is higher memory prices for all of us so Rambus can stay in the business of screwing us all.

    Regardless of how many good ideas they come up with, the fact remains they knew they were trying to set it up so they could make money off all memory that was sold. That ranks them right up their with the music industry making money off all the artists.

    The whole thing reeks.
  • First of all, they are written in their own special language "patentese", which is a dialect of "lawyerese" with some suspicious sci-jargon thrown in. They are desinged to be read and written be specially trained individuals who can properly encode/decode them.

    Does this mean that if I file a patent on a stunningly obvious technology the MPAA or RIAA use I can sue them under the DMCA if they come after me? After all, I took measures to make sure my data was properly encoded and they obviously violated the DMCA if they were able to read it.

    Well, I can hope .... :)

  • Occasionally, it's tempting.

  • Or, I can complain, point out stupid flaws in the sytem, and generally make a pain of myself until the problem is fixed. Maybe I can even get a chance to fix the problem myself.

  • Wow, you're right, they have the patents.

    They also sewed up a monopoly on RAM by getting their patents set as the standard for memory.

    This is going to be in court for a LONG time. After the patent and standards association dust settles, people will start wondering why memory costs 4 times more than it used to. It won't take long for the antitrust lawyers and class action suits to start.

    Oh, and let's not forget. This is the new economy. We don't compete on technological innovation anymore, but on lawyers and marketing.

    What, you thought you'd change the world or something? Nope, that's the lawyers' job.

  • Aside from the fact that Hemos was clear about his editorializing and thus doesn't violate any journalistic ethics, there are a few reasons to keep the editorial comments:
    • If Taco, Hemos et al are laboring under some kind of misconception about something, we'll fix that! This wouldn't work as well if the editors posted to their own stories - Jon Katz tried that in his Saving Silverman review and gotted modded down (deservedly!) as Offtopic. Go moderators! ;)
    • Editorial comments remind you what forum you're on and may help keep undesirables away, or at least remind them of the prevailing opinion. If you disagreed the actual content of Hemos' comment about Rambus, perhaps you really belong over at www.patentandsue.com.
    • Often the editorial comments aren't carefully thought through (euphemism for "dumb"). But that usually simply adds to the vigorousness of the ensuing dialog. Like pouring gasoline on a fire!

    Not only would that bring /. one step back from dropping off my "read daily" list,

    Actually, I suspect the goal of many publications, /. included, is to be on the very edge of a lot of people's "read daily" lists. Something you read because you have to - for whatever reason - not because you want to. Taste is fickle, compulsion less so.

  • I think the companies that are having but not using are actually good. Often times, having a patent prevents others from getting one. If the folks way back when had patented hyperlinks etc, BT would not have a leg to stand on.

    The trick is to keep patents out of the hands of companies that have a sole business model on litigation. They end up stifling forward progress in their attempts to make $$$.

  • If I remember correctly, a few years ago our great goverment and patent office deceided to extend some patents out to about 25 years I think. If I'm not remembering this correctly, somebody please post the right numbers.
  • AND JEDEC rules require companies to explicitly disclose patents.

    Rambus didn't.

    END OF LINE.
  • I do not believe that to be true. In the US if I file a patent and it is not open to the public until the patent is issued.Now I may inform my competitors that I have a patent pending but I am not obliged to do so.

    Other countries open a patent upon submisson which imo is a cleaner design. We could have this avoided this mess if JEDEC was able to check with the USPTO and verify that everyone was playing fairly. I also feel it could reduce litigation costs. Competitors would have the opprotunity to fight a patent before it was issued instead of filing suit or waiting to be sued.

  • The inventor gets nigh-total control over their good idea for the next X years, in exchange for telling us what it is.

    "in exchange for telling us what it is" There, you found the problem yourself, only you didn't see it.

    Did RAMBUS say anything? No, they kept the patent around, well hidden. So that 1-no one knows that someone patented this thing, and 2-no one benefits from the research anyway (since the behaviour of Rambus here is, "hide our patent and wait till someone else builds the same thing")

  • VHS won because it was an open, semi-free standard with easy licensing terms.

    VHS's success was largely due to a push from the motion picture industry. Betamax and VHS started out with approximately equal footing in the consumer market in the early eighties. I remember Betamax tapes were a little more expensive but of noticably higher quality. What really changed things was movies being released on VHS. They were expensive, but became cheaper. With the rise of video rental, Betamax dwindled in the consumer market.

    Contrary to popular belief, Betamax is still used today, just not in the consumer market. Many professional broadcasting studios use it. DV is making heavy inroads there, but a lot of television stations still have huge archives of Betamax tape.

    ------------

    As to be not marked "Offtopic" and to get this thread back on track, I will comment on the story. It appears that RAMBUS was, at best, unethical. Sure, other companies might have done the same thing in their situation, but popular != right. I don't know if there's any area of law that covers this specifically, but I would guess that the Sherman Act would cover this in spirit (i.e. you can't take action to restrict free trade). I'd say that failing to disclose pending patents while sitting on a relevant standards body and then using them to be a toll-taker after the standard has been implemented by unsuspecting third parties probably falls under the category of restricting free trade.

    -Jennifer

  • Um, you just said that a Netscape doesn't suck. Either you have been on the web for less than 2 hours in your entire life (netscape's mean time before failure), or you forgot your &ltsarcasm&gt tags. The "incredible piece of software engineering" part makes me want to believe the latter. How can you say a browser doesn't suck if it reloads the page every time you resize its window? If this doesn't fit your definition of "suck," then try resizing it when you're dicking around with frames.
    --
  • You are right. It is not flamebait, it is a troll.

    If the author hadn't done so many beer bongs during his "college days" he might remember that hard drive space and CPUs were similarly limited in capacity/power and price. BFD; that doesn't make Western Digital a good investment or a stellar innovator.

    If they are such a glorious company, why does this fatuous missive contain NO explanation of the fantastic breakthroughs they made, or details of the failures of other companies involved in RAM technology, or descriptions of their daring attempts to do what was regarded by most as impossible? Had any of these things taken place, the post would likely rise to at least a two or three despite its dissenting view and a lot fewer people would be trashing their extremely questionable patents.

    You haven't been around here much, have you? If you had, you would know that individual moderators have no ability to re-think their moderations, and that lame cries for help against unfair moderation only occur in grossly and obviously unfair cases, and that doesn't apply here.

    You claim that "mabey [sic] he is just informed." Well, why on earth wouldn't he share such valuable information, then, instead of trying to impress a few people with his age, and making a really long comment that could be distilled to "RAM used to be expensive. That is why I think they are a good company." You state "I am sure he has a reason to invest in them." I am sure he does, but since there are no good reasons in his post, it's fair to assume that his reason isn't a very good one.

    Add his stinky post, stir in your complaints, and I smell astroturf.

    Boss of nothin. Big deal.
    Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

  • as if Rambus wins, memory prices are going up, and fast.

    It seems to me that nobody is happy with the performance of Rambus anyway. I for one will go for DDR on my next system, not Rambus. And I believe the DDR is cheaper already [ie. not much more than SDRAM, though I could be quite mistaken in that]. So screw Rambus, I want nothing to do with them.

    On another note, as I mentioned in another recent article: Rambus had a booth at last weeks Brassring Job Fair, and the main position they had open was for a patent attorney. I laughed out loud as I passed the booth and saw that. :)

    Ender

  • If those patents were filed around 1990,1992, shouldn't they expire by now???


    Even under Internet speed, they wouldn't expire by now. Patents are good for 17 years. In other words, since they got to keep the filing date of 1990, those patents are valid until 2007.

  • I always thought VHS vs. Betamax wa the ultimate case of bad technology winning, i.e. Betamax wa far superior. Then again, I was 2 at the time.
  • I have no mod points, but this post needs to be moderated up. Don't know what it'd do to Kats tho :)

    Lose the editorial comments (Score:0)
    by gaj (greg.jandl@qlogic.com) on 08:15 AM February 12th, 2001 CST (#24)
  • Just for information - Rambus never signed an agreement - neither Hyundai or JEDEC is alledging this, because no one has been able to produce paper. They are arguing that through its' very attendence at meetings Rambus was a party to the rules of the group. No dues were paid and no agreements were signed.

    One the other hand, Rambus did vote at the meetings. It's just that their only votes were to NOT adopt their technology.
  • The all the actual memory manufacturers should perform a sort of sit-in, refusing to make memory unless Rambus drops its patent. Rambus has shown no capability to actually make product. The ram manufacturers could destroy Rambus in public opinion with this kind of move. People are fed up with this kind of crap from corporations. I think Rambus is actually incapable to make memory chips, with no royalties and no income from manufacturing, they would die.

    I would be unbelievably painful for the computer industry, an absolute nightmare. It would prove that the lawyers have taken over every aspect of business and thrown all ethics out the window. But something has to be done to stop this. The memory manufacturers have the power to do this.
  • It may be ethically wrong. But there are alot of people and alot of companies doing very unethical things and not getting punished for it (they're getting rewarded in fact!!)

    What good are ethics when there is no punishment for violating them. This is a very slippery slope that only leads to disaster. I hope RAMBUS doesn't get away with this, it will be yet another area where ethics it dealt a loss, too many more hits and ethics in all aspects of life will be completely rendered meaningless.
  • When the SDRAM standard was being finalised, they got their "technology" included in the spec and just forgot to tell the other members that they had a patent on it.

  • Yeah, this scares me. These "intellectual property companies", not to mention rambus and the rest, have a lot to lose from the patent reform that we all keep crying out for. The IP companies, in particular, rely on the existence of patent law for their very existence. Who knows what they would do to stop patent reform...
  • No, they did NOT develop ANY technology as far as SDRAM is concerned. They sat in the meetings and patented the technology that was created in those meetings. They were under obligation to disclose any patents (or pending patents) that they had on technology the commitee was discussing, they did not.
    They used a dodge to cause the patents to be dated much earlier than they actually turned in the information. They started the patents in 1993, and added additional patent information on the patents. By doing this, they made the patent older than the JEDEC published standard. (This is from memory, I have the Hitachi court document at home.)
    So to answer your question, they did not develop the technology, they stole it from others, and they do not deserve royalties for it.
  • Hear, hear. Another case of the USPTO abandoning their public trust.

    Unfortunately, unless someone else came up with the idea before Rambus submitted their patent (not before it was accepted), the patent remains valid.

    So the antitrust arguments seem like the most promising avenue at this point.

    --Renard

  • Besides making patents and suing/forcing other companies to pay royalties, I don't know that Rambus has ever done a damned thing. As for the other companies, WTF wouldn't they sue back? Ibag
  • The thing is that they sat back and let thier technology grow and grow without trying to enforce thier patents. After it's use got to be too big for most people to change they decided it was time to start the lawsuits. I don't think people would be quite as upset with them if they had started asking for thier money right away.
  • I think the situation is probably going to be than that. No equipment maker will want to get involved with the open standards process if companies like Rambus can ignore the rules like this. Thus, open standards will go out the window and every manufacturer will try to push its own proprietary standards. I don't think I need to explain why this is a bad thing, especially for something as basic as memory...

    Very simply, if organizations like JEDEC can't put any sort of teeth into their IP agreements, there is no reason for the manufacturers to participate as the risk of being blindsided by undisclosed patents is too great. This sort of garbage won't be pulled in the future because the organizations will disintegrate due to lack of industry participation.


    --Fesh

  • Except by the rules of JEDEC if you offer technology to JEDEC then you must disclose any patent claim you have to that technology. So even if RAMBUS did invent SDRAM they still have no claim to royality on it. Secondly since the RAMBUS patents involved where orignally filed in 1991 without anything that pertained to SDRAM, and then retrospective modified in 1996 using a loophole in US patent law: Its pretty clear that RAMBUS did not invent SDRAM, and where instead knowingly and fraudlently tring to steal open technology. Since the ammounts of money each are in the billions, this is grand theft, and i demand the maximum penalty of life imprisionment for all Rambus execs involved and the death sentance for the company itself.

  • Sony invented both, kept Betamax and licensed out VHS, and ended up losing.

    Except JVC [jvc.com] created VHS, not Sony. VHS won because it was an open, semi-free standard with easy licensing terms.


    Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]

  • Unfortunately, unless someone else came up with the idea before Rambus submitted their patent (not before it was accepted), the patent remains valid.

    The original patent was submitted in 1991 or so, with one set of claims, all of which were replaced after SDRAM was standardized. If the date of amendments has no bearing on the validity of a patent, then that's a bug in US patent law.


    Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
  • Actually, the point of business is finding and retaining customers. With that comes the profits which raise shareholder value. At least, that's the Lotus plan.
  • Doesn't matter... Rambus employees will get no respect from this industry. If I have a decision in hiring an engineer, I will hire the person w/o Rambus on their resume. I wouldn't tolerate the kind of ethics they have.
  • < from the boycott-rambus dept.

    The unfortunate thing is that you can't boycott Rambus if Rambus is getting a cut of everyone else's sales.

  • Graduate? A ten year old could figure out this was wrong if couched in the correct metaphor.

  • I don't get that - what use are patents if you can't use them to shut out competitors (or at least charge an entry fee which is what RAMBUS are doing/attempting). I'm sure there must be a subtler distinction here that I'm missing out on...

  • >Therefore, the other committee members designed a memory technology in a clean room environment that just happened to infringe on *pending* patents.

    IIRC, the patent they filed in 1990 was unrelated to SDRAM. However, because of the way the USPTO works, they were able to apply for the SDRAM patent later, but using the original application date of 1990.

    RAMBUS is clearly in the wrong. It isn't a matter of them being "smart enough". Just because they found a way to monopolize on the DRAM industry doesn't mean they are entitled to do so.
  • LOL, my IE on Win2k hasnt crashed ever. I dont need to disable features or download a new build everyday.

    If a user has to go out of their way to use a program, then what good is it?

  • Their original, and intended use --- to allow the original inventor to recover the costs of development (without patents, competitors can copy at low cost, leaving the originator of a design at a disadvantage).
    John
  • > Kind of like CISCO with their patent on NAT

    Cisco's had to deal with some pretty nasty patents being lodged against it; as far as I've seen, they've not gone out and actively used so-called "nuclear" patents(for their MAD capacity) as a method of extortion.

    I don't expect them to start.

    --Dan
  • I has become a business to sue.

    Mny companies' only goal is to patent "technologies" and ideas. Since you are not required to show a working prototype for patent applications, this can get easy. You then wait for the sucker who'll actually implement the thing and sue them.

    Obviously, the key is to patent you stuff using the vaguest-possible to make it hard to find a pertinent patent when you apply for one yourself (like a bait).

    Although this may not be the case for RAMBUS (aka, patent-baiting), they do want to take advantage of legal actions, since this can bring them money, since royalties were not coming in anyways.

    "Business as usual" they say.

    Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
  • The link above actually maps to

    http://www.tomshardware.com%2frambus%2fcompariso n. html%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20@goatse.cx/

    The goatsex / shockpic thing is nasty and hateful, but I have to admire the misplaced zeal in finding new ways to herd unwilling and horrified traffic in front of things they didn't want their brain troubled with this lifetime.

    Now why don't you use your powers for good?
  • I personally think what Rambus is trying to do is run what amounts to an extortion scheme using the patent laws as a shield.

    Unfortunately for them, the case I mentioned earlier invalidated that idea, and Rambus will find out very quickly this is NOT going to work. In fact, the DoJ may even go after Rambus for violating the Racketeering, Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Federal statutes for putting pressure on other memory manufacturers so brazenly.
  • Brian,

    What United Shoe Machinery Company did during the first half of the 20th Century was because they held several critical patents on shoe-making machines, they used those patents to forcefully kill all the competition in against them.

    The US DoJ got wind of this, and they went after United Shoe. That resulted in the famous 1945 decision that ruled United Shoe could not use the patent laws to eliminate competitors.

    Imagine if Eli Lilly had forcefully enforced their patent on Prozac like United Shoe did; it would have effectively killed off competitive anti-depressants like Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Remeron, etc.

  • Then, it's time to invent memory that doesn't need RAMBUS's idiotic patents isn't it? Sadly, it appears the product cycle for this kind of thing is terribly long. I have half a mind to boycott PCs entirely until these patents expire so I won't be giving RAMBUS any of my money.

    I actually would really hope that Micron and Hyundai would completely detroy their companies rather than give RAMBUS a cent. I would rather pay any amount of money for RAM that was not encumbered with stupid RAMBUS licensing fees. Their business model is evil and wrong and must be fought.

  • As someone else pointed out, our wonderful USPTO keeps patent applications secret until they're granted. It's pretty easy to tie up the approval process until it's convenient to have your patent granted.

  • Suppose some other race came and landed here and started demanding royalties for all these technologies that they had invented previously that they owned patents to? Suppose they had had an agent infiltrate and file patents on the techologies 5 years ago with the USPTO.

    Would this be fair or correct? Would you be happy paying them royalties? Aren't those ideas really their property? Aren't we violating their property rights and stealing from them? Isn't it just the same as invading their planet and taking land by force of arms? After all, those technologies were patented fair & square.

    Patents are a way of encouraging a certain kind of involvement within a community. The source of our upset with the aliens would be the fact that they circumvented many of the implied contracts with society inherent in the vision of how patent law is supposed to work. I think this example is very analogous to RAMBUS's behavior, and that our upset is quite understandable.

  • think back to the days when 3dfx was at the apex of its business.

    they chose to worry more about some guy building a glide->direct3d wrapper (and thus harassed & attempted litigation) rather than focusing their efforts on innovating their product line and building in more VALUE that would entice customers to purchase. in the process, they alienated a large percentage of their "enthusiast" customer base.

    sadly, another competitor in the video card business is gone because they were too focused on the tactical here-and-now instead of worrying about what *really* needed their attention.

    imho, the same thing will happen (again. the first round was in the early 90's if i remember correcly) in the memory business, it'll just take a good deal more time because product release cycles are quite a bit longer.

    litigation is a procedural necessity when you've got aggressive third parties taking bites out of your company (especially if actually done fraudulently, not imho the case with rambus), but if you can't back up that litigation with further innovation, clearly, you're in for serious trouble.

    Peter
  • It's like this: You come up with a great idea and start selling it. I see your idea, copy it, and begin selling it myself. Legally, I now owe you royalties. The catch is that you CANNOT ask for so much that I'm priced out of the market, or that your price gains an unfair advantage. The goal of royalties is merely to make sure that you're compensated for the business I take away from you, not to put me out of business. A patent is like a purse to collect money from eveyone who uses your idea. It is NOT a hatchet to kill them with.
  • Well, no one can accuse Rambus of trying to shut out competitors. After all, they don't actually make anything. Their whole game is to get somebody else to actually take all the risk and make the investment needed to actually manufacture memory. They just sit back, skim the cream off and get fat.

    In theory, at some point, RAMBUS did actually at least have some technical people working for them. After all, lawyers don't write memory patents by themselves. However, it wouldn't suprise me if by now RAMBUS has fired all the engineer's and is now 100% lawyers.
  • Rambus says your claim is wrong. You say that they "provdied key technology". Bullshit.

    ---- quote from the C|Net article ----
    What did it do while a member of JEDEC? Nothing. Rambus didn't try to persuade JEDEC memory committees to vote on proposals that would affect its patents and didn't vote on any, Rambus has mantained. Some companies had also already licensed Rambus' technology.

    "We attended meetings, but we never proposed a standard," said Kanadjian. "We've been very
    consistent that lot of inventions we have brought to the market pre-date any issues brought up
    at JEDEC."

    --- /quote ---

    In fact, Rambus's whole defense to the FTC probe is that they never pushed or recommended their technology to JEDEC members, making their non-disclosure a non-issue (although still a violation of the rules). If your claim is true, then it just makes Rambus's violation of JEDEC rules all the more egregious.
  • The leap I make comes from the fact that RAMBUS is one of the only high-profile companies operating the way that it does, i.e. as a pure licensor of IP. I don't think companies like this should be encouraged, especially not when their claim to their IP, even under the laws as they stand, seems a little weak. The mentality of "let's get some patents and then sue everyone who wanders nearby, and hope that some of the cases stick" is not the way to a productive and efficient economy.

    Besides, if this were just about RAMBUS' own technology, that would be a little different; but their broader claims against the industry go to far, and I don't think should be allowed to stand:

    Those patents were granted to them, wether they deserve them or not. There's nothing wrong with them trying to enforce them fully.

    I disagree. Patents are an incredibly wooly area, and companies like RAMBUS push their claims beyond the bounds of sanity. It's up to a company how it chooses to handle its patents, and many companies seem to be capable of behaving quite responsibly. Usually, the ones that don't behave responsibly are those that are failing in other areas (e.g. Unisys, Amazon), or those like RAMBUS which have no other value whatsoever.

    I don't even think that these companies serve their investors well, except in the short term. Long term, they're toast, because everyone else is going to find a way around them.

  • It's simple: RAMBUS doesn't make anything, but they make life difficult for a lot of companies that do make useful things. The very existence of RAMBUS is the consequence of the particular set of rather arbitrary intellectual "property" laws we have now. RAMBUS need to be taken down hard, and my bet is it's going to happen, sooner or later.
  • Kindof.

    It is 20 years from date of filing. (Simply, there are other conditions.....)

    Older patents expired 17 years from date of issue. I don't remember when things changed....

    Look here. [uspto.gov]

  • I'll have to agree. The only problem I see with the initial post is that it was way to long (copied from a news posting perhaps?) and it had a slightly inflammatory catchline at the end. The fact that the guy stated plainly at the beginning that he was a Rambus investor and the clear marking of his conclusion as OPINION.

    This moderation was extremely unfair.

  • This is being tried in Germany. Does anybody know how this will be different from the court cases here in the States? Also, noticing that there is also a trial coming up in Italy, does the EU provide common standards for these cases or does each country rule based on their own set of laws?

    TIA

    Flower

  • Rambus provided nothing. The technology was independently developed without the use of Rambus technology.

    That Rambus managed to con the USPTO into granting patents on (obviously) obvious technology that anyone in the industry could, and did, develop is hardly surprising. The USPTO grants such patents every day.
  • ZDNET [zdnet.com]
  • > See everyone cries foul after something has happened but when things are emerging everyone wants to remain silent until its too late, happens in technology, privacy related issues you name it. So where was your voice to strengthen your current arguement when their patents were being processed? Where was everyone elses,

    Actually, the whole point of this mess is that RAMBUS kept their patent application secret, so that nobody would know it, and raise hell at that comittee. As applications take quite some time to process, it was only granted (and thus made public), long after the deed was done.

    > now that the sh## is hitting the fan the roaches crawl out the woodwork to cry "gimme gimme gimme

    You know, companies do not have a god given right to profit. They cannot just patent the atmosphere and then whine about the "gimme gimme gimme roaches" that want to breathe for free.

  • I own some. It seems to work ok, but runs hot and is very expensive compared to SDRAM. Not to mention it's incompatible with non-RDRAM machines, and therefore confined to being usable on only the one machine (of many) that has it. We use HP equipment at my company, and all the other machines appear to be SDRAM. THis is nice, because we can move memory from machine to machine without compatibility problems. The RDRAM machine will just have to be hooked to a chain and thrown into the river after stripping it of useful parts once it goes dead. Not to mention that my SDRAM machines are more upgradable -- more than 2 slots and higher-capacity DIMMS than RIMMs. Pricewatch rocks.



    - - - - -
  • >>Many companies' only goal is to patent "technologies" and ideas.
    >
    >Okay. You say 'many'. Name ten companies for which this is the case.

    I can't name ten. But I can name one. RMBS.

    Even Intel themselves are distancing themselves from RAMBUS - they wanted a technology company, not a bunch of lawyers.

    Sadly (for INTC, RMBS, and the rest of the computing world), RDRAM is a dog that just won't bark. RMBS is doing what it feels it has to in order to survive - sue the fsck out of everyone in sight because it has no source of revenue other than the royalties it can extort with its legions of landsharks.

    Sadly for RMBS (and wonderfully for the rest of us), DRAM pricing has dropped to the point where DDR SDRAM can be sold at about the same price as regular SDRAM. The recent production increase of RDRAM from Toshiba is a last-ditch attempt for high-cost [R|S]DRAM producers to break even. But RMBS is one legal decision away from oblivion.

    Anyone got a source for a quote I seem to recall (but can't find) about an Intel guy saying something to the effect "we wanted a technology company, not an IP company"?

  • Ethics are not based on your behavior when there are consequences. Ethics are what you do when you believe there AREN'T any consequences - when you believe there is gain involved. If you are ethical, you will do what you believe in, even when you think you're the only one watching.

    However, there are ALWAYS consequences - whether it is loss of the technically conscious market share, bad karma, lost sleep, or simply people spitting in your face when you go to conferences. Even if they win in court (which they shouldn't), they will lose in the market, and someone (hopefully more ethical) will buy up their empty shell of a company.
  • How's that for a business model?

    I actually don't see anything wrong with the business plan. What's wrong with spending your time coming up with new ideas and then selling them to other corporations? When individuals do this we call them inventors. Why is it necessarily evil when a corporation hires a bunch of inventors to do the same thing?

    Note that I'm not defending Rambus. They seem to actually be pretty sleazy and deceptive, but it doesn't seem that there is anything inherently wrong with patenting new ideas for RAM and asking those who produce RAM to pay your for the use of those ideas.
    _____________

  • The issue is that Rambus claims to have patents on SDRAM and DDRRAM in addition to RDRAM. Simply because you don't want to use RDRAM on yoru next machine doesn't mean that if Rambus wins your memory prices won't increase anyway. Which would suck.

    -----------------------

  • The new ads are the most obnoxious, annoying advertising experiment I've yet seen.

    I don't care if it is an interesting article, I'm not giving them the hits.
  • No, they wouldn't have tried the same thing. Rambus happened to be the only member of JEDEC that *didn't* physically produce any product. Since this debacle, the JEDEC has changed their rules to include only companies that physically produce DRAM.

    The only reason rambus is getting away with this is because they pulled out of the JEDEC conference mid-way when they realized that Dell Computer tried to do the same thing as them but were found in contempt of JEDEC rules and had their patents nullified.

  • In my neck of the woods, 128MB PC133 SDRAM is $50-60 US. I suggest you buy as much as you can before this trial concludes, as if Rambus wins, memory prices are going up, and fast. Memory has been so cheap lately due to free market, if Rambus takes that away, then we're all screwed.


    Don't mess with me... I write code
  • imho, the same thing will happen

    One key difference. 3dfx was a hardware manufacturer that made worthwhile products. They lost when other manufacturers surpassed them. OTOH, Rambus is a pile of patents that does not manufacture ANYTHING.

    The patents cover fundamental principles of memory cell access, not just one specific implementation. It's up there with patenting the hyperlink [slashdot.org]. If they don't get overturned, every computer buyer in the world has to pay Rambus for the next several years. How's that for a business model?

  • However, because of the way the USPTO works, they were able to apply for the SDRAM patent later, but using the original application date of 1990.

    What are the chances of other countries getting so sick of USPTO stuff ups that they no longer honour US patents? This would be a very big step, involving cancelling treaties, so I expect it isn't very likely. What are the chances of other countries threatening to do so, if the USPTO doesn't get its act together?

  • Because a patent is a contract between society and the inventor. The inventor gets nigh-total control over their good idea for the next X years, in exchange for telling us what it is. Without the financial incentive of a temporary monopoly, inovation would be less attractive and "human growth" would be restricted.

    But I agree about the having-and-not-using part sucking.

    God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein

  • Same unpleasent adverts:
    • Smack in the middle of the page
    • Strong contrast
  • For someone so insistent on the "facts", you've made up quite a fairy tale. Assuming you didn't intend this as mindless flamebait, allow me to mention a few things:
    1) Several years ago, when the major players of JEDEC got together and finalised the SDRAM standard, and later the DDR SDRAM standard, Rambus provided key technology to make those standards possible. Rambus's whole stance is that they didn't drive the standard formation, and didn't bring their technology to the committee-- otherwise, according to the JEDEC agreement, they couldn't patent it.
    2) I know how much you slashdoters hate Big Corporations. On the one hand, Rambus. On the other, Micron and Hyundai. Which side do you think is bigger?
    3) I certainly hope our court system will do The Right Thing and smack Micron and Hundai with some major penalties to make up for their theft and corporate espionage. In fact,the only people alleging espionage are Micron and Hyundai. Rambus isn't alleging any theft-- they're simply saying SDRAM infringes on their patents. Micron and Hyundai, by comparison, allege that Rambus not only failed to disclose their patents, but attempted to steer the standards committee's discussion towards infringing their patents.
  • Corporations are focused purely on making the most money for their shareholders and keeping the share price up. The customers come a poor second to this with employees a very distant third.
  • From the article

    For one thing, it would have been difficult for the committee to come up with an alternative, making royalties inevitable.

    "It would have been difficult not to use" the patents, said Peter Glaskowsky, an analyst at MicroDesign Resources. One of the patents controls how the processor gets a memory address, or the location of the data in memory. Rambus' technique is relatively straightforward and efficient, he said. End Quote. So Rambus is claiming: the JEDEC would pretty much have had to use their pantets, as it is the only way to do it. This is a justification for their behaior not being so bad. Is the only way to do something in any way realted to the things obviousness? As in, if a group of proffeisionals gets together, and decide to do something a particular way, and it is really the only way to do something, doesnt that mean that that is obvious?
  • First, I want to give credit to Hemos for recognizing his bias. It would be nice to see more of this humility on Slashdot.

    Second, however, is a question: how can any of us really judge the technical merits of Rambus RAM without owning it? Sure, there's the benchmarks, but relying on others is never a way to get accurate information (particularly in this crowd, that likes to do things on their own).

    I understand the legality bs, but it would be nice to get some honest to goodness testimonials about Rambus RAM from actual owners.

  • I'm not a JEDEC member, I've never read their terms of membership, or anything of the like. In fact, I have no connection to the PC hardware manufacturing industry whatsoever. BUT, I would strongly suspect that membership in JEDEC would be contingent on revealing all IP patents regarding to pending technology standards .... it might not, but it would seem like it was in their best interests to have a clause like that.

    I'm also highly suspect of RAMBUS' business techniques. Its one thing to disclose patents at the time of design. Its entirely another to wait for them to get widespread adoption (ala Compuserve with LZW/GIF) and THEN announce that you indeed have a patent on this, and that you will, in fact, be charging money for it. Highly dodgy, and see if RAMBUS are consulted on the next round of JEDEC.

    It may well be that RAMBUS has one this round. Personally, I hope they havent, but they do own the patents. I cant see the company having a future in the memory industry though. NG Memory design committees will almost certainly not consult RAMBUS other than to say "So have you patented any of THIS?" and make them sign to it.

    ---
  • This is a little ominous for standards organizations, as it said in the article. If these organizations can't enforce rules governing the conduct of these money-grubbing companies, then they will continue to do this kind of garbage.

    I don't see why they wouldn't be held to such a standard, if they signed a legally binding agreement to disclose patents relating to standards technology when they joined. It seems like if they held out on purpose, it is their own fault.

  • Troll, fools. Click on the users web page.

    Sheesh....

  • Sounds like somebody has money invested in or works for Rambus.

    Surprised somebody didn't label this Flaimbait.

  • I agree deeply. If you think the PC market is in a downturn now, wait for the prices to be jacked up because of this. This is no good for the economy. All the newer stuff needs more memory. I forsee hardware and software sales being stalled for a while because of this as pepole extend the life of their current systems and forget upgrading for a while.
  • that since Rambus in an intellectual property company, they have no products, only patents. If they lose this lawsuit (i.e., the patents they have are not upheld) they will go away. PC companies are eager to use DDR-SDRAM as opposed to Rambus RDRAM, and that eagerness will only increase if Rambus' patents that they are using to siphon money from RAM mfr's are struck down. The performance of RDRAM does not justify the increased price it commands.
  • Aren't corporations supposed to be more focused on doing business than suing?
  • Other companies, including Wang and Dell, have been found in violation of antitrust law for not disclosing patent applications, according to several sources and Hyundai legal papers. However, in many of these instances, the companies actively promoted their technology to some degree. By contrast, Rambus was relatively passive.

    Either way you cut the cake Rambus does have the patents for it. Whether or not it chose to either negligently, or out of sheer stupidity the fact remains they have the patents. This sort of reminds me of the Swedish citizen who invented I think it was the mouse and never took a patent out on it out of feeling the need to not make it an issue. Well years later he went to do so and the general feeling towards him was "screw you!" Its a mad mad mad mad world we send packets through.

    400 thousand visitors [antioffline.com] in February couldn't be wrong

  • by not disclosing the existence of its intellectual property at the time the memory standards were being formed, according to court papers filed by Hyundai.

    Ask yourself, while knowing this is the immoral thing to do, do you think their competitors wouldn't have tried the same slight of hand maneveur. So at the time the standards were being formed can be misleading. Was it BEFORE, DURING, of AFTER, which is the specific here. During the 20th century... well during the 20th century a lot of things happened. Specifics could help here, and no I'm not trying to jump on any side here but there's always two sides to a story and both should be heard fully out before jumping the bandwagon and making assumptions. Actions like this have jeapordized many'a' cases many'a' times

  • First trial in Germany (Score:3)

    by Trekologer ( 86619 ) <adb AT trekologer DOT net> on Monday February 12, 2001 @05:38AM (#438725) Homepage
    The first case going to trial, according to the c|net article is in a German court. IANAL, but this case is important but not as important as the U.S. cases will be (Rambus' patents are from the U.S. and can only be totally invalidated in the U.S.). If Rambus looses in Germany the weight of their patents are dimished in the eyes of everyone else but they'd only not be enforcable in Germany. Rambus would still have the patents in the U.S. (and thanks to the WIPO, everywhere else in the world).

    Now on to my rant...

    There's no doubt in my mind (or should be in anyone's mind) that Rambus conspired to deceive the JEDEC and corner the memory market through illegal practices. Even if they did not propose the SDRAM standard, they were in attendance at the JEDEC meetings and knew damn well that the standards being proposed might be infringing on patents that they held. They knew that the standard set by the JEDEC would become the de-facto standard for memory in all computers and that all the memory makers worldwide would be producing SDRAM products. They set a trap for everyone else, led them right into that trap, and now are triggering that trap. Thank god that Micron and Hitachi are fighting Rambus' trap.

    Ah, that felt better. Godspeed to Micron and Hitachi.

  • + 4 insightful ? Should be -1 Bullshit. (Score:3)

    by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @05:11AM (#438726) Homepage Journal
    In order to gain a patent, you have to disclose your design. That's the whole point of patents - in return for legal protection of your intellectual property, you have to disclose details of how the design works and mankind (is supposed to) benefit from this disclosure of knowledge. The alternative to patents and disclosure is to keep your design secret but have no legal protection of your design.

    The details of patents are not released while they are still pending. RAMBUS's patents were still pending during the JEDEC meetings, so the only way for JEDEC to know about them was for RAMBUS to disclose them which they didn't even though they were supposed to as part of the conditions for joining JEDEC.

    So the lying snakes joined JEDEC and steered the entire hardware industry in the direction of using technology they were in the process of patenting so that the entire hardware industry would owe them royalty fees.

    IMO, JEDEC are just as guilty as Rambus for creating this whole situation

    Why? Because they aren't psychic and read RAMBUS's executives minds or because they didn't make all members undertake a lie detector test?

    Grabel's Law

  • Have you ever tried to read a Patent? (Score:3)

    by Srin Tuar ( 147269 ) <zeroday26@yahoo.com> on Monday February 12, 2001 @05:14AM (#438727)
    First of all, they are written in their own special language "patentese", which is a dialect of "lawyerese" with some suspicious sci-jargon thrown in. They are desinged to be read and written be specially trained individuals who can properly encode/decode them.

    Second of all, the Patent applies to any use of the described technology, so the title of the patent and its overview do not tell you all the applications of the patent. In order to understand a patent you must understand all of the patent.

    Thirdly, even if part of a patent is invalidated, the balance remains in force, so you must understand every part of a patent.

    Say you are trying to invent something new on your own. Now imagine that you are charged with making sure that there is no patent you would be infriging upon. This means you are responsible for knowing and understanding every part of every patent ever issued. Even disregarding the fecundity of the patent office- this is impossible.

    The purpose of the JEDEC was to avoid this problem. All parties agreed not to lay a patent minefield. RAMBUS broke the rules- they are trying to gain from the work of others- they should lose.

  • Re:Patent nonsense. (Score:3)

    by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Monday February 12, 2001 @05:03AM (#438728)
    I don't see how the JEDEC (Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council) members can claim that Rambus didn't disclose their patents on SDRAM at the time that the standard was being chosen.

    From the article:

    Although the original claim was filed in 1990, Rambus didn't receive its patents, and make them fully public, until after it left JEDEC. By then, SDRAM was already established as the next standard for memory.

    So basically what you have is this: Rambus and a bunch of other memory manufacturers are sitting around at JEDEC, discussing what the next memory standard should be. Eventually, they decide that it should be SDRAM. All the while, RAMBUS is sitting there with the knowledge that they have pending (as in, not yet accepted, or public) patents on SDRAM, yet they say nothing to anyone else.

    Whether this is illegal or not is what the courts are going to decide, but at the very least it's highly immoral. Think maybe RAMBUS might have had an agenda for pushing an SDRAM standard at the conference, knowing that they'd likely be granted a patent on it in the near future? Think this knowledge might have affected what the other companies thought of SDRAM?

  • This should never have happened (Score:3)

    by not-quite-rite ( 232445 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @04:37AM (#438729) Homepage Journal
    Rambus knew that they had a more than a competitive edge when the standards were being drawn up.

    If a politician(moreso a minister) does not disclose that they have a vested interest in a change in the legislation, then they get investigated.

    Similar to insider trading.

    What does the international standards organisation do to stop this. How does a standard come about with this happening?

    Surely there should be measures to stop this, or at least enforce decisions afterwards, particulary in regards to violations like this.

    Or is the formation of standards similar to the UN, strictly a paper tiger?

  • Well, Rambus DID invent SDRAM (Score:3)

    by Patrick McRotch ( 314811 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @04:25AM (#438730) Homepage
    I hate to say it, but I predict Rambus will win this round of lawsuits. I know how much you slashdoters hate Big Corporations, but if you put your preconceptions aside for a moment and look at the facts for a change, you'll see that Rambus is, in fact, well within their legal rights to charge royalties for the use of SDRAM.

    Rambus is one of the primary members of JEDEC [jedec.org], a coalition between major players in the semiconducter industry. Several years ago, when the major players of JEDEC got together and finalised the SDRAM standard, and later the DDR SDRAM standard, Rambus provided key technology to make those standards possible.

    Hemos, you seem to think that Rambus stay's in business by charging frivolous lawsuits against other memory manufacturers. Fortunately, that is far from the truth. Rambus is an intellectual property corporation, meaning they devote their resources to inventing the technology that makes todays high speed memory possible, but they do not actually manufacturer memory. That is where liscensing fees come into play. Rambus liscenses their technology to other manufacturers who actually produce the DIMMs. Sadly, Micron and Hundai seem to think that it's okay for them to manufacture memory using stolen technology with out any legal repercussions. I certainly hope our court system will do The Right Thing and smack Micron and Hundai with some major penalties to make up for their theft and corporate espionage.

  • Re:Well, Rambus DID invent SDRAM (Score:4)

    by Flower ( 31351 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @07:48AM (#438731) Homepage
    First, Rambus was a member of JEDEC. They joined in 1992 and left in 1996. This was clearly stated in the article. As for contribution, that seems to be in debate.

    There is another article here [electronicnews.com] at ElectronicNews Online that provides some information not included in the C-Net article. All I can say is the more I read about Rambus the more I am convinced that they were unethical in their dealings with JEDEC.

    For myself, I am more inclinced to accuse Rambus of corporate espionage than I am of Micron or Hyundai. If there is any justice, Rambus will be nailed to the wall for breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law.

  • Re:Well, Rambus DID invent SDRAM (Score:4)

    by jmauro ( 32523 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @04:58AM (#438732)
    It is actually RAMBUS that is at falt here. As a member of JEDEC they agreed not to get any patents on the technology and to disclose if they held any current or pending patents on technology they held. The technology isn't stolen at all, as part of JEDEC it is the proposed standard, which RAMBUS agreed to. I'd have some symphathy if RAMBUS wasn't part of JEDEC, but they were and by joining of they're own free will they have little or no ground to stand on as being moral and upright for doing this.

  • Patent wasn't awarded yet (Score:4)

    by TekkonKinkreet ( 237518 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @05:16AM (#438733) Homepage
    From the JEDEC manual:

    NOTE -- All committee ballots shall contain the following patent statement:
    "If you are aware of any patents involved in this ballot, check this box and notify the
    committee, citing the patent numbers."

    The problem here is that while it sat on the JEDEC, RAMBUS had applied for but had not yet been awarded the patent. Everyone agress that RAMBUS didn't try to influence the standard setting process. The article also suggests that the outcome would have been the same even if the patents had been in place earlier, since the patents are so hard to circumvent (that's what you're going for when you write a patent). So the argument is that they should have disclosed the fact (presumably, somehow, without giving any indication of the contents) of the patent application.

    Any business might reasonably be reluctant to do that. Setting the specifics of the RAMBUS case aside, if you're a company with a patent application in progress, you don't want anyone to know what the patent is about, because you don't have any protection for your technology. After all, the patent might be rejected, and then secrecy is your only protection.

    As I am about the billionth person to point out, the problem is in the USPTO. Patent examiners come from the lower ranks of engineering, and patent trial juries are hopelessly overmatched by the issues they are presented with. However, there must be some system in place which allows someone to invest money in research with some expectation of making back that money. Otherwise you have the kid's soccer game model of technology, one company innovates and is immediately swarmed by as everyone clusters around the ball, and the winner is often the one who has the most to spend on marketing because they didn't have to do any engineering.

  • Rambus could lose based on legal precedent (Score:5)

    by RayChuang ( 10181 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @05:01AM (#438734)
    I think Rambus could have tough going defending its patents because of one famous legal precedent: U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Company (1945), which ruled that a company cannot use the patent laws to engage in legal practices to shut out competitors.

    What Rambus is engaging in right now is almost a perfect reflection on what United Shoe tried to do to any shoemaking company that violated United Shoe's various patents on shoemaking machines in the first half of the 20th Century.

  • Revoke Their Patents (Score:5)

    by mrwiggly ( 34597 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @04:42AM (#438735)
    Hitachi et al claims that Rambus should have disclosed their IP while
    they were members of the JEDEC.

    Rambus says they never mentioned or promoted their IP.

    Therefore, the other committee members designed a memory technology in a
    clean room environment that just happened to infringe on *pending*
    patents.

    This suggests to me that Rambus patented an *obvious* solution to
    computer memory, and those patents should be revoked.

  • The most troubling aspect to RAMBUS' behavior (Score:5)

    by laetus ( 45131 ) on Monday February 12, 2001 @04:16AM (#438736)
    What troubles me the most is the following from the article:

    In the JEDEC, Rambus "engaged in an illegal scheme to secure worldwide domination of the market for semiconductor memory" by not disclosing the existence of its intellectual property at the time the memory standards were being formed, according to court papers filed by Hyundai.

    In essence, Rambus knew it had a claim to intellectual property that was being discussed in a standards-setting body in which it was participating. Basically, they were laying a trap for all the other memory makers.

    This would be a good case study for an graduate studies ethics class.
    ----------------------------------

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Close