Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Court Decision Favors Rambus 129

Posted by Hemos from the and-it-goes-on-and-on dept.
RoscoeP writes "This story from News.com: "A federal judge has overturned two counts of fraud against chip designer Rambus...". At least Rambus can't pursue litigation against Infineon for SDRAM though." See our previous stories about Rambus for far-too-much background.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court decision Favors Rambus More

Court decision Favors Rambus

Comments Filter:

  • The court favors Rambus... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nastard ( 124180 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:03PM (#2113136)
    ...and they're the only ones.
    • No, their shareholders favor Rambus. The folks on the Rambus board at The Motley Fool's message boards (www.fool.com) are positively frightening in their zealotry...

      • The folks on the Rambus board at The Motley Fool's message boards (www.fool.com) are positively frightening in their zealotry...
        Not just the Fool...Yahoo is home to some foaming-at-the-mouth RMBS fanboys as well. Up until Rambus started losing in court, one of them also infested comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips [pc.hardware.chips]. Never mind the demonstrated inferior performance of RDRAM in most applications and with most processors and chipsets; to this maroon, RDRAM and the P4 were the Second Coming while DDR SDRAM and the Athlon were "unstable dead-end junk" and "dead dead dead." Never mind that the Athlons I use at home and at work (a homebrew box at home and an HP Pavilion (!) at work) are among the fastest, most stable computers I've ever used...if you disagreed, you must've been an "AMDroid."

        (None of this even gets into comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips as a technical newsgroup for discussing the merits of different processors, chipsets, etc., as opposed to a stock board...)

        • I'll say "Intel sucks, RDRAM bites, DDR rocks and AMD RULES!" Go READ the datasheets for the P4 and the Athlon and come back and tell me which is better. But if you can't understand those datasheets, shut up, you're not entitled to an opinion. Hersay does NOT count!

          I have, on several occasions, detailed how AMD has licensed, cloned, or otherwise second-sourced every chip Intel's ever built, usually with better yields - which means better speed, better reliability, and LOWER PRICES for what are essentially the same chips.

          That's not just the CPUs, either. That's UVEPROM, EEPROM, peripheral chips, and Intel's entire line.

          But Intel has extravagant multimedia ads which lie out their ass, as well as, of course, dancers in bunny suits, so they get brand recognition (sorta like Micro$oft) and AMD must suck, right?

          WRONG! AMD has people in bunny suits, too, only they're busy burning silicon instead of dancing on your TV. This savings allows them to bring you their product at lower prices.

          And RamBus? RamBus should just cash it in, retire, and get out of the market before someone else sues the remaining snot out of them.
          • I'll say "Intel sucks, RDRAM bites, DDR rocks and AMD RULES"
            I'm on a tbird right now with ddr and I agree that RDRAM bites, but there is a via chipset that allows you to use ddr with a pentium 3. DDR rocks but it isn't amds only.
          • (Posted without the +1 bonus because it's not entirely on-topic.)
            I'll say "Intel sucks, RDRAM bites, DDR rocks and AMD RULES!" Go READ the datasheets for the P4 and the Athlon and come back and tell me which is better. But if you can't understand those datasheets, shut up, you're not entitled to an opinion. Hersay does NOT count!
            Um...between the above and the subject line you're using, I hope you didn't get the impression that I am some sort of Intel fanboy. Reread my post...it was a description of a certain Induhvidual who pestered a group on Usenet for several months. I've bought only AMD for the past four years or so, starting with a K6-200 and going up to a 1.0-GHz Athlon.
            • Um...between the above and the subject line you're using, I hope you didn't get the impression that I am some sort of Intel fanboy.

              Oh, no way! My comment was aimed towards the described induhvidual, and mostly at the general "Intel Inside" mentality. While I can't track him down and flame him directly, this is as good a forum as any to rant in. I hope _you_ don't get the impression that I'm less than proud to be an AMD customer.

              I guess I _did_ kinda go off, didn't I. It's not as if anybody blasted you or the others who were calling the RDRAM fans zealots. I should probably go over to the fool and foam at the mouth there for a while...

      • ...all three of them.
      • No kidding. I went over there and posted an opinion with a couple of charts and articles to back it up and was immediately proclaimed a basher and spreader of FUD. You'd think I just insulted their mama.

        Dancin Santa
    • It seems even their shareholders don't like them.

      Just up on Yahoo news: Shareholder suit [yahoo.com] filed in US District Court of Northern California on charges of fraud in representing their patents on SDRAM.

      There's some serious blood in the water here. Could this be the beginning of the end?

  • More Information (Score:2, Informative)

    by robbyjo ( 315601 )

    Check out The Inquirer [theinquirer.net] for more information. They said the court makes no difference to the patent infringement case.

  • Infineon and Rambus have been battling in European courts over the same issues, and the EU judge had cleared Rambus of any fraud charges, so it seemed like it was only a matter of time before the US courts fell in line with that decision.
    • IANAL, but will go out on a limb to say that the job of US courts is to interpret according to US laws, not laws of other countries, or the EU. US courts do not fall into line behind the decisions of other EU courts, unless the judge is senile.
      • Yes, but we're not talking about the finer points of patent law in this case; we're talking about fraud, which is a pretty much the same thing in both courts. Also, this case has international scope, because Infineon is a European company. These two court cases aren't happening in separate vacuum-sealed spaces, either.

        So it is quite likely that, upon reading the EU judge's decision, that Robert E. Payne applied similar logic to the case over here.
        • If Payne did so then Infineon has a clear path to appeal, as US courts should only apply by US law. Now, US law could be part of a treaty with the EU, but I haven't read such as mentioned anywhere.
          • My point is that the laws are the same. Fraud, murder, theft -- it doesn't matter if you're in Liverpool, Rome, Tijuana, Montreal, or Dallas; they have the same definition. Reparations are different, and the processes for making judgment are different, but we don't disagree on what it is the way we do on, say, patents.
            • Many of what you describe are were covered in the Magna Carta, which the US Constitution was modeled after. "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness" has been interpreted to no end to cover many of these issues. Rambus attempts to prevent Infineon from selling products in each country, or in the EU by battling within Italian, German or EU guidelines in Europe. How that plays on that side of the pond has no relation in the US, even if both were US companies (which Infineon isn't.)
              • Right; but that's a -patent- issue, not a -fraud- issue.

                • Yes, but fraud, too has different interpretations, depending where you are. If you ever want an education in "rights" then travel to verious countries, or just research, and find out how differently "rights" are observed and protected there. Burden of evidence, innocent until proven guilty, etc. varies widely. In some countries what Rambus did would be viewed, as with Clinton's sexual antics, as par for the course.
  • Considering that if Rambus was found guilty of of fraud, than it just *might* make other companies somewhat wary of sueing over somestuff, and thereby hurt the still vibrant law industry. Woudn't want that now..would we?

    Maskirovka

    Call me a cynic, and I'll take it as a complement.

  • how many times can they go back and forth.. and does the first decision hold any more weight than subsequent rulings.. appeals.. ?

  • Greater than, less than (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evilMoogle ( 304970 ) <(moc.liamelive) (ta) (elgoomlive)> on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:14PM (#2117045)
    But the court...ordered Rambus to pay $7.1 million in Infineon's legal fees.
    Last May, a jury in the Virginia trial found Rambus guilty of fraud and regarding DDR SDRAM ordered the company to pay punitive damages of $3.5 million
    Now, I'm don't have any degree in mathematics, but I beleive that 7.1 million is GREATER than 3.5 million. Maybe numbers have changed, but RAMBUS isn't do itself any favors. And now they want to have to pay MORE lawyers fees, apparently with their intended appeal. Stupid RAMBUS.
    • The two fees being referred to are different. The 'legal fees' aspect is akin to being forced to pay to replace the signs you vandalized as a kid. Continuing the example, 'punitive damages' would be having to perform community service after you've paid to replace the signs. It's like telling a company to go sit in the corner (Without the massive headaches of an AT&T breakup)

      Typically, punitive damages are greater than legal fees (Think McDonald's being forced to pay $5M for serving hot coffee), but in very high profile/technical cases like this, this kind of reversal isn't that uncommon.

    • > but I beleive that 7.1 million is GREATER than 3.5 million

      The way I read it, RAMBUS owes 10.6 million. Which means that if their funding has become limited and their now out $10 million, I suspect that even its royalties would keep it in business for very long, especially when they're not selling their principle product.

      So the rest of the world continues to enjoy dirt cheap SDRAM while RAMBUS pays for trying to rip off the little guys.

      tim
    • there trying positioning themselvs so they can gain gain royalties on ddr sdram. so an extra couple of million today to potentialy make billions later. Its a good business decsion from a strictly money making view point. If they don't do this, they'll basically fail anyways, and won't have the money to pay.
      • "Its a good business decsion from a strictly money making view point."

        Let's assume for the sake of arguement that Rambus does get royalties from DDR, one could easily assume that the entire memory industry would get togethor, kick Rambus out of their commities, and form a new royalty free standard and refuse to allow Rambus to make it.

        It's still a "short term" move. After DDR RAM is no longer viable (and I'm willing to bet that won't be long), Rambus is screwed. It's not good business sense to piss off an entire industry that has no reason to listen to you anymore.

        • True, but lets say the industry is amazingly fast, and its cheaper to create a new standard immediatle then to pay rambus royalties.
          in the first year alone,plus royalties for anything sold to date, would make the executives at rambus very wealthy, and thats what its all about to those people.
    • But the court...ordered Rambus to pay $7.1 million in Infineon's legal fees.

      Oh, to be an Infineon lawyer for a day...
  • When I first read the headline, I saw
    "Court Decision Flavors Rambus"
    mmmm, Rambus

  • This is awful. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by david.johns ( 466417 ) <kallisti&morpho,dar,net> on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:18PM (#2120383) Homepage
    For the first time in a LOOONG time a company has (had) been charged with fraud, in connection with activities that constitute... well... fraud.

    Aside - if it had been a DMCA violation, we would have been executing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hprosecuting employees by now.

    In my mind, at least, it's going to be very hard to maintain that their patents are bogus if they are not fraudulent. I don't know much about how our appeals system works (never had to use it, thank gods) but I expect that the higher court to whom they appeal cannot effectively re-open the investigation of fraud without Infineon also appealing.

    That means the next case is (probably) going to go like this:

    These your patents? Yup. This their RAM? Yup. Pay 'em. Case closed.

    AFAIK there is no viable way for the court to assert anything else without a _major_ break from precedent.

    Remember, though. IANAL. I really hope I'm wrong.

    • Doesn't work that way, thankfully. Their patents can still be held illegitimate. Only the fraud charge was overturned, and fraud is a much more serious issue (and much harder to prove) than simple filing of an invalid patent. Fraud requires knowledge that the patent was false, as well as intent to obtain money thereby, as well as goodness knows how many other additional legal hurdles, whereas patent invalidity simply requires that the court determines that the patents were granted erroneously, with no question of intent or motive.

      As an analogy to the courtroom scenario you describe, suppose I am in posession of some stolen property. They can't prove I stole it. Do I therefore get to keep it? No. Regardless of whether I actually comitted a crime in obtaining it, it still doesn't legitimately belong to me, and must be returned to the owner.

  • Well, from Rambus' point of view... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yumi Saotome ( 470249 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:46PM (#2123320) Journal
    They believe what they are doing is protecting their inventions. I mean, to them, SDRAM is just an extention of RDRAM (incorporates such things like Delay Gate technology), which is why they should extend their claims to SDRAM. Infineon then claims no, they invented it first, and shouldn't have to pay for anything. At the end, it will just rely on prior art, and in that case, Rambus seriously believes that it can win (at least, for DDR DRAM). This is what I hear from a bunch of Rambus employees.
    • Of course you hear it from their employees, they're desperately afraid. They were promised stock options that'd be atmospheric, now they're not usable for lining bird cages.

      Every idiot they can convince that their company isn't a complete failure is someone who may buy stock, upping the price, and making their options worthwhile.

      Face it, they have NOTHING. What part of "*ALL* their claims were thrown out." don't you understand? All this fraud thing means is that less of them will be going to jail when the company tanks.

      There is something about RMBD having loyal fans that makes me warm and happy inside... Just think, the random investor and other stockholders dumped the stock when the company started to tank, other less-loyal fans dumped when the stock plumetted. But the loyal types, they're hanging on to their religious belief that their stock isn't worthless... The good thing about this is that they'll get NOTHING when the company finally folds. This... the fact that greedy assholes will lose BIG, comforts me.

      To me, anyone who would buy RMBS stock, supporting the company that tried to steal money from the rightful inventors and implementors of these products can go to hell in a hand basket. Fuck, Rambus didn't even make a product. (Nor, for the reality impared, did they invent one.)
    • No, SDRAM and RDRAM are both decended from DRAM, but are by and large different memory technologies. SDRAM was developed by JEDEC (although at one time RAMBUS was a member). RDRAM was developed solely by RAMBUS. They both use a number of similar technologies, but they are different. RDRAM is serial, while SDRAM is parallel.
      • That's where you're slightly wrong. One thing (there are others, I believe) that set RDRAM slightly apart from normal DRAM is delayed gate technology. Rambus was the first to incorporate this into their DRAM, which is what makes RDRAM move faster (even though it seems like it shouldn't, move data faster by putting a "stop light" to tell data to stop(!!!) and go?! WTF?!). This was unique to RDRAM only; in fact, it was a fundamental patent. When Infineon incorporated this into SDRAM without paying royalties, that's when Rambus got pissed.
    • Actually, it doesn't just depend on prior art, if that prior art was developed during JEDEC. It's clear they were intentionally deceitful; whether that went far enough to be legally classified as fraud is apparently still up in the air.

  • Quick look at PriceWatch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rkischuk ( 463111 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:27PM (#2127301)
    256 MB 800 mhz Rambus RDRAM - $87
    512 MB 800 mhz Rambus RDRAM - $380

    256 MB PC133 Micron SDRAM - $25
    512 MB PC133 Micron SDRAM - $77

    Remind me why I need this stuff? If you want to see the future of RAMBUS, reference "microchannel" expansion slots. It seems you can only strongarm an entire marketplace if you make software....

    • The high end always has a lower price/performance ratio than the low end. Workstations cost 5x-10x more than PC's, but only perform marginally better. But it's often worth it.

      Case in point: I run simulations of microprocessors for a living. For this application, we had about a 3x speedup moving from P3/SDRAM to P4/RDRAM, since the application's bottleneck is memory bandwith. A typical job moved from 10 hours to 3 hours, and the cost of the speedup ($52 for a 256MB system) is absolutely peanuts compared to the productivity increase.
    • The look on your face when you realize you paid too much for RAM: priceless
    • its more about getting liscensing for DDR

      • its more about getting liscensing for DDR

        Licensing for Dance Dance Revolution? They'll have to ask Konami [konami-arcade.com] about that.

        Oh, you meant "Deutsche Democratic Republic [fortunecity.com]"? Sorry, West Germany bought them out way back in October 1990, even before the Internet had a World Wide Web.

        Oh, you meant "double pumped SDRAM".

    • Remind me why I need this stuff

      What you mean a 5% increase in performance isn't worth a 500% increase in cost ? Rambus and Intel for whatever reason thought so, but in the end we voted with our money and in another 6 months to a year RDRAM will be a bad memory (no pun intended). Now if we could just get the same thing to happen with Windows XP, the world would be safe for God, Democracy and Linux.

      • > What you mean a 5% increase in performance isn't worth a 500% increase in cost ?

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a chipset (and for that matter, a CPU) specially designed around the RDRAM, you get something like double the effective memory speed.

        Of course, that's assuming you can get the chipset and CPU working right, which isn't easy. I think this is one of the reasons Intel is backing out of their support for RDRAM.

        • Yup, you do get roughly double the effective memory speed. The previous poster was discussing performance, how fast various programs actually run, and that gave Rambus a slight advantage in certain real benchmarks, back when it cost >10x more than SDRAM.
    • Don't forget:
      256MB PC2100 Micron DDR - $36
      512MB PC2100 Micron DDR - $189

      The 512MB sticks are still expensive (only 1/2 of RDRAM), but still a much better value. With SDRAM and DDR chipsets appearing for P4 soon, Rambus' days are numbered.

  • Link to Rambus v Infineon Docket (Score:4, Informative)

    by myst564 ( 196476 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:17PM (#2127968)
    Here's a link to the actual docket http://www.rambusite.com/RambusVsInfineon/Docket.h tm .

    It probably would be nice to have someone comment on what was exactly denied in the ruling.
  • They're still in business? I was under the impression that the Infineon (sp) judgement was crippling...hm.

  • According to the story [marketwatch.com] at CBS Marketwatch, only one count of fraud was overturned, the one relating to DDR. The fraud conviction still stands with regards to SDRAM.
    On Thursday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia cleared Rambus of fraud charges related to DDR. However, it maintained that Rambus had committed fraud with respect to SDRAM, Wiseman said.

    "The court affirmed Infineon's broad theory, and found that Rambus did intentionally defraud JEDEC in respect to SDRAM standardization," said attorney John Desmarais of Kirkland & Ellis, the New York law firm representing Infineon.

    Rambus plans to file an appeal on the SDRAM decision in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

  • How does this affect the consumer? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Memory of all types continues to get faster and cheaper at an astonishing rate. Is this decision really going to have any effect on that?

  • Like ripping out a single coffin nail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aerog ( 324274 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:09PM (#2136054) Homepage
    But even if they're not criminally liable, the amount of bad publicity they've recieved in the last little while can't be anything but bad for busines. What with the fraud cases themselves as well as Intel dropping support [slashdot.org], added to the cost difference between Rambus and SDRAM, they've distanced themselves from the majority of the geek community, something that other notable companies [microsoft.com] can afford to do, but they can't. When SDRAM is less than CDN$35 for 128mb, It's just impossible to sell on truse alone when you have no more trust.

    Now it's just sit back and wait for more bad news for Rambus.

    • Unfortunatley... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by srvivn21 ( 410280 )
      They are claiming royalties on both SDRAM and DDR SDRAM. 3.5% on DDR and .075% on SDRAM. Sure those are paltry sums taken alone, but it may be enough to power the life support...

      Every time you purchase memory, you put a little cash back in Rambus' pocket. Or am I completly off my rocker?

      • Well, not yet. This is what they are fighting about. But if Rambus prevails, this is what will happen. Let's just hope they die a horrible death.
      • If you'll look at the financial statements of companies like Toshiba that make these chips, I think you'll find that their profit margins are none too fat. 3.5% is a big bite, and one that the manufacturers can ill afford.

        If I were Micron, I'd tell RamBus to go fsck themselves. I doubt that they'll get any more manufacturers to cave in to their claims. At best, they'll win hard-fought court battles for any royalties at all, battles which will leave them financailly drained. MUCH more likely is that they'll fight another fraud suit and _lose_, at which point the RAM industry will laugh at them even harder than they are now.

      • Re:Unfortunatley... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Saurentine ( 9540 )
        They are claiming royalties on both SDRAM and DDR SDRAM. 3.5% on DDR and .075% on SDRAM. Sure those are paltry sums taken alone, but it may be enough to power the life support...

        Paltry sums?!?!?

        They're trying to claim 3.5% and .075% of a market that was anticipated to be $40 BILLION annually! Although most recent estimates are around $20 BILLION, that's not life support money, that's what sent their stock skyrocketing to around $125/share after splitting!

        Paltry sums? Oh, wait, you're Bill Gates, aren't you?

  • Personally, I'm glad Rambus is dying the slow, steady death; grasping onto it's customers as life preservers is a bad side effect, but it won't keep the afloat forever. Why does hasn't Intel made more progress in introducing a DDR chipset? Do they really think this company should be allowed to live? I realize they've got too much Rambus product, but is there some sort of contract preventing Intel from releasing DDR chipsets? Rambust needs a proper burial, and I think Intel needs to be the one nailing the coffin shut.
    • I believe that, in fact, there actually is a contract between the two that barred Intel from introducing non-RDRAM chipsets for the Pentium 4 as early as they would have liked, and that a similar restriction had been in place for the Pentium 3. Maybe the agreement also barred them from cooperating with others (Via, say; and nVidia -- with their nForce project presumably not being a one-off) that would consider designing a non-RDRAM chipset.
      • Clearly this is false since both VIA and SiS are coming out with P4/DDR chipsets this month (and Intel with a P4/SDR one). The only thing delaying the DDR version of Brookdale is validating it (this is Intel's first DDR chipset while VIA and SiS have more experience with it).
  • Umm... it's April Fools' Day, right?
    Right?

    (panic attack sets in)

  • Home (Score:1)

    by ioman1 ( 474363 )
    Rambus is home in the courtroom.
    • Rambus is home in the courtroom.

      Considering their aim is to be an Intellectual Property innovator and owner, they'd better be. Las time I looked they were pumping 50% of their revenues into legal wrangling. This must be the reality of being and IP company, beg, buy or steal then defend or bluster, and hope like heck your oppenents aren't A) Many B) Richer C) Smart

  • Confusing/conflicted stories (Score:4, Funny)

    by nixon ( 12262 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @03:09PM (#2153257)
    Boy, what a difference spin makes. Check this article out:

    http://biz.yahoo.com/st/010810/28625.html

    Seems pretty much pro-Rambus.

    Now look at this one:

    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010810/100178.html

    Basically a reprint of Infineon's press release. Boy, and you thought the patent system was confusing! So what's the real analysis?

    • Spin from both sides.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @04:15PM (#2124915) Homepage Journal
      But the crux, as I undestand it, is that Infineon wanted Rambus' complaints against them brought to an end, while Rambus' ability to pursue Micron and Hynix to continue. Micron and Hynix are competitors after all, and for the benefit of those who haven't followed, they haven't worked together, just toward a common goal. So, in the spirit of winning, but not helping your allies, Infineon wishes to step away from the battlelines and sell memory, unfettered, while Micron and Hynix continue to soldier onward.

      All in all, it's still a really bad thing for Rambus, as they've got to be running so low on revenues, from slumping sales in the IT market, that they should be considering out of court settlement with the manufacturers. Although such a concession might be too late.

      Yet there's still the matter of Rambus vs Infineon in a german court, where a technology expert was appointed recently, and the italian procedings which looked like a win for Rambus, but the judge put on hold. Wait and see.

    • Basically a reprint of Infineon's press release.
      That's exactly what it is. That's why it says "Press Release" at the top, followed by "Source: Infineon Technologies".
  • "Rambus revealed [cnet.com]during the Infineon trial that it charges royalties of 3.5 percent on DDR SDRAM and 0.75 percent on SDRAM. "
    Seems a little extreme, eh? What a waste of time patents can be...

    • What fun patents, IP and crap can be! (Score:5, Funny)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday August 10, 2001 @05:08PM (#2122578) Homepage Journal
      If there were a gang of kids planning to string tin cans together to talk to each other...

      Geoff Tate would leap from the bushes, run down the street and fax the design to the US patent office, then sue unless he was paid a stipend.

      Lucent would attempt to make the cans and string and lose a large fortune, requiring massive layoffs at their lemonade stand.

      Steve Case would be adamant that the string have a huge granny knot in it to be more effective

      Bill Gates would say it has to be 4 inch braided nylon rope with a detour through his house

      Larry Ellison would hold his breath and turn purple unless the cans were imported from Japan

      Thomas Penfield Jackson would call Gates a big stupid jerk and get dragged home by his mother and grounded for a week

  • One word (Score:2, Interesting)

    by b0r1s ( 170449 )
    But the court granted Infineon's request to prohibit Rambus from pursuing further litigation regarding Infineon's SDRAM memory and ordered Rambus to pay $7.1 million in Infineon's legal fees.

    OUT

    It's nice to see a judge standing up against large companies, to stop them from throwing lawsuits around against smaller companies who cant afford great legal defenses. Maybe this will (*cough ADOBE cough*) stop (*cough ADOBE cough*) from suing smaller groups over trivial (or perhaps nonsense) items.

    • Re:One word (Score:2, Informative)

      by _newwave_ ( 265061 )
      It's nice to see a judge standing up against large companies, to stop them from throwing lawsuits around against smaller companies

      I'm not positive...but I believe Infineon is a larger company than Rambus.
  • Seriously, no mention is made as to the judges' reasoning behind this. Was there a bit of data that the jury wasn't privy to, or is Judge Robert E. Payne just a dick? And what's with Geoff Tate's comment? "...the record has been set straight on DDR SDRAM." Ummm, what? For all we know those counts of fraud were overturned for shits and giggles. Anyone have other sources they could share? Perhaps something that actually tells me something? Need input.

Slashdot Top Deals

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_

Close