Rambus Wins Case Against Infineon 383
rednoise writes "Yahoo is running a story about how a Federal Circuit Court in California (I think) has (unbelievably) ruled that RAMBUS did NOT intentionally mislead members of JEDEC when the committee was developing the SDRAM specification. RAMBUS' stock skyrocketed something like 57% on the news. This is very bad news for owners of computers."
Freedom to innovate (Score:5, Funny)
Now I'm going to McDonalds for a delicious cheeseburger.
Re:Freedom to innovate (Score:2, Funny)
some Irish guy is rolling over in his grave with that product name...
Re:Freedom to innovate (Score:3, Funny)
A chipper wee lad he was... fell to the galloping consumption, he did...
May God rest his tiny soul.
Re:Freedom to innovate (Score:2)
Re:Freedom to innovate (Score:5, Insightful)
This is funny, but there is a problem with the (implied) argument. Rambus is not a very large company as they come, in fact it is basically a small fabless company which is totally dependent for revenue on licensing its intellectual property. It is nowhere near as large as Infineon (formerly the semiconductor division of Siemens AG), not to speak of Microsoft. Second, Rambus actually has designed technology...RDRAM is basically an original technology, and much more of a departure from conventional memory architecture than DDR or any of its competitors. Whether it is a better technology right now, in practice, is another matter, and there are apparently major problems producing RDRAM modules at the moment. Furthermore, no one disputes that the SDRAM patents that were at issue in this case were valid, and concerned technologies that Rambus actually did develop themselves.
There are basically two things about Rambus that are reprehensible, though -- neither of them have anything to do with innovation. First, they didn't disclose their patents at the time they were on a committee that was designing the SDRAM technology (which they are now suing manufacturers of), and second, their current attempts to support themselves through royalties relating to this undisclosed patent. And the second, while disturbing, is not illegal.
Won't be accepted elsewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
The terrorists have already won... (Score:2, Funny)
Terrorist 1: "What are we doing here, Abdul?"
Terrorist 2: "It should be obvious, Mohammad. We are getting sandwiches."
Terrorist 1: "This place is a symbol of all that is evil about the West, Abdul. Simply being present here corrupts the soul. It is an abomination before Allah."
Terrorist 2: "The clown is indeed disturbing. But the large purple fungus-man amuses me."
Terrorist 1: "You know that is not what I am talking about. This place flaunts its degenerate Western values in the face of Heaven. It must be expunged from the Earth!"
Terrorist 2: "Keep your voice down, Mohammad."
Terrorist 1: "IT IS THE WILL OF--"
Terrorist 2: "SHUT UP, YOU FOOL! DO WANT TO BE ARRESTED BEFORE...ahh, before we can order our delicious food? No, no, fellow citizens, my friend is simply agitated about the--ahh--swill served at that Wendy's down the street. Not like this fine establishment. No, no."
Crew chief: "Welcome to McDonalds, sir, can I take your order?"
Terrorist 2: "Ahh, yes. I will have a Big Mac, regular fries, and a large orange drink."
Crew chief: "And you, sir?"
Terrorist 1: "Hmm. What is this 'Happy Meal' item?"
Crew chief: "That's a children's meal, sir. You'd probably prefer a larger sandwich."
Terrorist 1: "ZIONIST WHORE! YOU WILL BURN IN THE FLAMES OF HELL!"
Terrorist 2: "SHUT UP, YOU FOOL! He--He--He is a collector! He needs but one more Hot Wheels toy to complete his collection! Right, uh, uh, Sam?"
Terrorist 1: "Yes, fine."
Terrorist 2: "Right. Right. He will have the cheeseburger Happy Meal with a cold refreshing Coca-Cola. I am very sorry he became so agitated."
Crew chief: "That--That's okay, sir. Your order will be ready in just a moment."
Terrorist 2: "Mohammad, you fool. You must keep your mouth shut. Let me do the talking."
Terrorist 1: "My name is not Sam."
Terrorist 2: "I know that. We are supposed to blend with the Americans, remember?"
Terrorist 1: "Do not call me by degenerate Western names, Abdul."
Terrorist 2: "Did you pay no attention during training? Weren't you listening to--"
Crew chief: "Number 23!"
Terrorist 2: "Come on. That's our food."
Terrorist 1: "Hmm. This meal doesn't look very happy. And the portions are very small."
Terrorist 2: "Shut up, Mohammad."
Terrorist 1: "And this toy car appears to be cheaply constructed."
Terrorist 2: "Shut up, Mohammad."
Terrorist 1: "What is this?"
Terrorist 2: "Hmmm? Oh, that's the Monopoly scratch-off game. Scratch away the silver parts of the card and you win a prize, like food or money. Not like that, Mohammad. Use a quarter."
Terrorist 1: "Hmph. More tools for spreading blasphemous Western values."
Terrorist 2: "Use the edge of the quarter, Mohammad."
Terrorist 1: "Oh."
Terrorist 2: "Allah help me..."
Terrorist 1: "A-Abdul! Look! Look! I won!"
Terrorist 2: "Really? That's wonderful. What was your prize?"
Terrorist 1: "It says I won 'any breakfast bagel sandwich!' You see? What is a breakfast bagel sandwich?"
Terrorist 2: "They slice a bagel in half, then put eggs and meat inside it. It's fairly tasty. Better than the pancakes, I'll tell you that."
Terrorist 1: "I can't believe it! Can I get it now?"
Terrorist 2: "No, they only serve that for breakfast. We'll get one in the morning, alright?"
Terrorist 1: "I--I--Oh, alright. It cannot be helped. I still can't believe this, Abdul! I've never won anything before!"
Terrorist 2: "You'll have to try the sausage bagel. You'll love it."
Rambus Stock (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Rambus Stock (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) Start a company.
2.) Sue the living bejesus out of everyone
3.) PROFIT!!!!!!!!!
The sad thing is that apparently works...
Re:Rambus Stock (Score:4, Funny)
Become a Lawyer and make your goal to have as many court cases as possible.
That's immediately a 50% increase in profit, you win whichever way the case goes, and you win double if they appeal..
fuzzy math (Score:5, Funny)
The company's stock soared on the news, rising $54.75, or 57 percent, to close at $11.69 on Nasdaq.
Ah, Yahoo.
Re:fuzzy math (Score:5, Informative)
Re:fuzzy math (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the sentence was misleading on Yahoo's part. They should have said "initially rising to $54".
But then again, look it up at it's stock today [yahoo.com] and you'll see that it started the day at $7.50, then rose to $12 on the news. I have no idea where yahoo got $54 from, but the 57% part was right.
Travis
Re:fuzzy math (Score:3, Informative)
Re:fuzzy math (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fuzzy math (Score:2)
Re:fuzzy math (Score:3, Funny)
Which RAM? :) (Score:2, Funny)
The Decision Doesn't Say What You Think It Does (Score:5, Informative)
So, it's neither good news nor bad news for anyone but Rambus, since they're not dead in the water. Infeneon will have to keep going.
slashdot considered harmful (Score:4, Funny)
Indeed, the jury is still out (as it were) on Rambus. They have won a decision, but not the case. The case is going back to the lower court.
Re:slashdot considered harmful (Score:2, Insightful)
What does having to choose from 100+ submissions a day do? I've had submissions get canned, half an hour before someone else's link to the same story goes up. I'm not complaining, but how do they decide and what does that do to a brain?
Doing some moderation on K5, I can tell you that its gruelling after a while. I don't know how they keep up like they do. And now they are in the buisness of multi thousand word stories. A boon to sci-fi for sure, but a drain on editors.
That might be one of the reasons I started my own site, I like the small-town atmosphere of a personal website. I like going out and finding my own content. Doing what these guys do has to be hazardous to the brain.
I hope that by continuing this thread I will not be tempting the fate of these god-like but fallible figures.
-----------------
OnRoad [onlawn.net]: It gets you there and back again.
Re:The Decision Doesn't Say What You Think It Does (Score:4, Informative)
And note that they didn't completely reverse the decision, they just sent it back down, saying that both sides would have to prove their cases better. You did know that the right to a "jury of peers" doesn't always apply in civil court cases, didn't you?
A case involving more than a billion is going to bounce like a hailstone up and down the court system. Get used to it, learn more about the law and your constitution, or move to a country that doesn't have appeals courts.
Re:The Decision Doesn't Say What You Think It Does (Score:4, Informative)
There is no point of constitutional law for the Supreme Court to review. Stick a fork in it-- this is over. The fraud conviction is overturned, and fraud was the basis for the FTC's antitrust case, which almost certainly just evaporated.
The CAFC also threw out the Virginia court's claims construction and "Markman" and basically wrote their own, which could not favor Rambus any more if Rambus attorney's had written it themselves.
The judge who wrote the majority opinion (there is one dissenter) is Raeder, who is the patent law expert on this court.
Re:Does "Suits at common law" refer to civil cases (Score:4, Informative)
The more significant exception is the word "preserved": you are entitled to a jury trial only in those cases for which the common law provided one at the time the amendment was adopted. This makes the analysis of "at common law" extraneous, because only the law courts provided for trials by jury: the equity and ecclesiastical courts provided trials only by (their equivalents of) judges. (Equity courts heard, among other things, cases involving remedies other than money damages; Delaware still has a separate "chancery" court. The ecclesiastical courts heard divorce actions, and other stuff no longer relevant.)
The seminal recent case interpreting the amendment is, in fact, from a few years ago on patent law. The trouble was, of course, that patent law in its present form did not exist in 1790, but the Supreme Court found the issue of infringement close enough to cases handled in law courts then. Thus, either the plaintiff or defendant may demand a jury trial.
Federal Circuit Court (Score:5, Informative)
Prevention? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Prevention? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but something like that.
Re:Prevention? (Score:3, Informative)
To answer your question, I think the legal process will solve this. (IOW, the threat of a lawsuit would prevent this kind of deception)
Re:Prevention? (Score:4, Informative)
not a done deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: not a done deal... (Score:2, Interesting)
> > Rambus maintains the document destruction was part of the company's regular document retention policy...
> Which leads one to wonder... what is that policy? Destroy it before the prosecution gets ahold of it?
Most corporations (other than the ill-informed Pa & Ma shop) have "record retention policies" that are primarily designed to prevent documents from coming up in lawsuits. The should more properly be called "record destruction policies"; you catch holy hell if an audit shows that you've been keeping stuff you should have destroyed.
Your government probably has laws that specify the minimum amount of time certain types of records must be maintained.
Re:not a done deal... (Score:2)
*And* that the lower court judge needs to bone up on patent law. I'd have to read more detail (like I understand the legalese, narf!) but it's possible that the appeals court would have let the decision stand if it wasn't for the mistakes of the lower court judge.
Serial Ram is the future, but..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not intending to mislead the JEDEC is no excuse to doing it. They either did or didn't. Try telling a traffic cop you didn't intend to speed.
What this means (Score:2, Informative)
Hehe...but not if you own some Rambus stock
Anyways, this might lead to lots of other pending lawsuits and cases against Rambus getting settled. The district court judge is taking a lot of flack now for how this case was handled - jury persuassion, etc. Expect to hear more about this in the coming days.
EEtimes has a slightly better clarification (Score:5, Informative)
"Having framed the duty of disclosure in the above terms, the court concluded that Rambus did not breach its duty as to the SDRAM standard because none of the claims in its patents and pending patent applications reads on that standard," [legal analyst] Balto added.
How was JEDEC deceived? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How was JEDEC deceived? (Score:4, Informative)
But the point is that RAMBUS filed for a patent, then pushed their idea as part of the SDRAM standard so that when their patent was finally granted, everyone would owe them money.
There is no amount of diligence or research that could have unearthed those patents during the approval process, short of torturing the RAMBUS representatives.
Re:How was JEDEC deceived? (Score:5, Funny)
Which is starting to look attractive to some people about now...
RDRAM vs. DDR (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know where to stand on the issue of who had prior art, but I have talked to people on both sides and they seem to both have valid arguments. I don't believe any of the companies involved are boyscouts. What I am interseted in is which is the better technology. Obviously, if you look at the specs [rambus.com] of Rambus, you will see that although DDR 266 is just a lower stepping of PC133 Ram and the bus is double-pumped. Rambus, on the other hand, has a lot more going for it. Its bus has less traces and allows you to more easily have more than one channel. It is also capable of shutting off portions of itself not in use.
If you look at a Tom's Hardware article [tomshardware.com] It mentions that there is a limitation with using parallel designs due to uncontrolled impedence.
Not to mention that memory benchmarks [anandtech.com] available on many sites show that DDR can't continiously maintian its bandwidth like Rambus can. Instead, its bandwidth is spurty.
Also, Rambus has many new things [rambus.com] on the backburner.
Rambus memory has also become much cheaper. I believe in leaving the decision of whether or not
Rambus infringed on patents to the courts and going for what is the best technology so you can give it a boost. What holds back RDRAM in terms of price is that there isn't enough being sold.
Re:RDRAM vs. DDR (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RDRAM vs. DDR (Score:4, Interesting)
Technologically RDRAM's fine with some weaknesses early on as far as the desktop platform (embedded was another matter). Had Rambus acted honestly from the start, this whole matter could have been avoided.
Re:RDRAM vs. DDR (Score:5, Informative)
In addition SDRAM has ~10ns latency, RDRAM adds 2-20ns (do I have my units right? it is ns yes?) because it is a serial infrastructure, meaning some chips on a RIMM are farther from the memory controller than other chips on a RIMM. Every chip on a DIMM is the same distance from a memory controller; In theory this makes boards more expensive and raises system prices, but the licensing fees (and higher expense of manufacturing RIMMs over DIMMs, though that is secondary) raise the prices considerably.
The belief that RDRAM is a superior technology to SDRAM is at best a matter of opinion and at worst an absurd myth. It COULD be a more cost-effective technology, and for systems which involve a minimum number of RAM chips like game consoles, it is effective because you are paying a minimal amount for licensing in exchange for the company playing up the fact that you're using it in their console even though that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with its suitability in a PC, coupled with the fact that you are using very little of it making it a small portion of your total cost... RDRAM makes great sense when you're not using very much of it (down in the ~16 MB range, where you only need two to four chips) but when you start putting it in PCs it has little to offer over DDR SDRAM; When it has an additional licensing cost to pay over an already inflated price for more expensive modules, it has none.
The benchmark you cite shows better performance for DDR SDRAM on intel's solutions than on the athlon system, which leads me to believe that it is possibly cpu-dependent.
Re:RDRAM vs. DDR (Score:3, Informative)
That would be because the FSB on the Athlon system is only 266(133 x2) [333 (166 x 2) on the new Athlons]whereas the FSB on the P4 is 533(133 x 4). The P4 simply has more available bandwidth 4.2 GB/s versus 2.1 Gb/s [2.6 for the newer Athlons]. Read here for how RAM bandwidth is calculated http://www.ocsystem.com/calmemban.html also http://www.upgradingandrepairingpcs.com/articles/u pgrade12_02_02.asp .
Re:RDRAM vs. DDR (Score:5, Interesting)
Theoretical performance doesn't hold up in practical applications. That is why there is SPEC [specbench.org]. Besides, RDRAM is designed so that you can easily make it a multi-channel architecture:
Quote: "By moving the core logic to the CPU and thus incorporating the Rambus Memory Controller as a part of the CPU itself, much of the current latency problems plaguing the technology will disappear. Both Sun's upcoming MAJC and the Playstation 2 are examples of embedded solutions with ondie RMCs. Another example is Compaq's upcoming EV7 (Alpha 21364), which also uses 8 channels to support massive bandwidth requirements and to keep latencies down (instead of accessing large volumes of DRDRAM in serial from a single channel, which would increase latencies)."
DDR SDRAM is more complicated to design in a multi-channel layout because of timing and motherboard design complexity issues. Besides, DDR SDRAM can't sustain its peak bandwidth even close to as well as RDRAM. Bursting isn't sustained bandwidth.(Remember, to transfer a byte, you have to transfer a QWORD. To transfer the next byte, you have to wait an entire clock cycle). Therefore, it only really allows 1/4 the peak bandwidth in this case.
[aceshardware.com]
A very old article from Ace's Hardware says: "The Rambus channel sends out the data twice as fast as the SDRAM, but the SDRAM can send out the first 8 byte without waiting, while Rambus has to transfer 16 bytes. As Rambus can send 2 bytes every cycle, it takes 4 cycles of 2.5 ns to transfer 16 bytes or 10 ns."
Of course, this is regarding 800Mhz RDRAM, and 1066Mhz RDRAM is currently out.
Also, not many applications only send 16 bytes at a time. For random access bursting applications, like servers, this is common. On the other hand, for 3d games, you want a sustained bandwidth to send all that data to the graphics card.
The aforementioned site speaks of examples where DDR SDRAM would be better because of its lower latency. In those cases, though, RDRAM will still be adequate.
Also, I'm curious to see any mentions of RDRAM versus DDR performance on newer chipsets.
> The benchmark you cite shows better performance > for DDR SDRAM on intel's solutions than on the
> athlon system, which leads me to believe that
> it is possibly cpu-dependent.
Since memory bandwidth depends on FSB, Intel systems should have an advantage.
>The belief that RDRAM is a superior technology to >SDRAM is at best a matter of opinion and at worst >an absurd myth.
Didn't see you try to refute the fact that unused cores shut down (great for power management).
> RDRAM makes great sense when you're not using >very much of it (down in the ~16 MB range...
Comparison: 1GB system.(Picking anything more would severely skew things in RDRAM's favor).
PC3700 DDR vs PC1066 RDRAM
source of prices: pricewatch.com
Generally RDRAM comes with two channels, while DDR generally comes with one.
PC1066 RDRAM theoretical peak bandwidth (2 channels)= 1066*2*2 = 4.3 GB/s
DDR3700 DDR theoretical peak bandwidth (1 channel)= 466 * 8 = 2.98 GB/s
Price:
DDR (512MB modules * 2) = $145 * 2 = $290
RIMM (256MB modules * 4) = $80 * 4 = $320
Yes, the motherboards for RDRAM based sets are more expensive, but the memory appears to be bearly more expensive in this case for twice the theoretical bandwidth. The RDRAM 512MB is more expensive than DDR 512MB, but since you usually find RDRAM in higher-channel configurations, this isn't an issue. Comparing prices is difficult since you have to pair RDRAM up.
Re:RDRAM vs. DDR (Score:4, Insightful)
Decent Judges? (Score:2, Interesting)
Somewhere John Corse just wet himself. (Score:2)
-dameron
get over it (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes we're all going to be enslaved and humanity's probably screwed for another millenium. Geeks need to figure out how to obey the corporations and morons. Just live mediocre lives. It's not that hard, millions of people do it everyday. Maybe freedom and liberty is overrated. After all the Russians survived communism didnt they? (though it's true that communists werent well funded).
Sorry. I'm not just getting depressed. I really think this is a losing battle. Is it that "geeks" cant connect with the general public? All over the world the fundamental concepts of freedom are being squashed and there's nothing we can do but observe it and say "damn, that sucks". Why bother?
Appeals court in WASHINGTON, D.C. (Score:2)
Not that the appeals court in San Francisco isn't screwed up, but let's get our facts straight, eh?
bad for computers? (Score:2)
Re:bad for computers? (Score:2, Informative)
Something doesn't seem right here (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't read the full decision of the court (and I probably wouldn't understand much of it if I did...I speak Perl, not legalese) but something seems wrong when a 3-judge federal circuit court can overturn the ruling of a jury with language like that. I mean, if the administration of the case was mis-handled or the judge screwed up...I could perhaps understand. Maybe someone more familiar or more enlightened could explain this further.
--K.
Re:Something doesn't seem right here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Something doesn't seem right here (Score:4, Informative)
It's not at all unusual for an appellate court to reverse a jury's verdict. However, the standards for doing so are very high; it's not sufficient that the appellate court strongly disagree with the verdict, but rather that no reasonable jury could reach the verdict based on the evidence before it.
In a sense, it is a procedural review, because a jury's finding that can not reasonably be based on the evidence generally means that the finding is on a question that should not have been submitted to the jury in the first place.
RamBuss (Score:2)
'Nother dot-bomb trying to make money via suits versus innovation.
If their technology is so good, then why should be protest paying for it. If it's so bad, why would we buy it?
*Shrug*
Is it just me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe if we would have slowed the pace, not tried to jump start the PC industry with clock speed wars and bus bandwidth statistics, and as an industry concentrated on elegant solutions, innovative design and bringing something truly new to the consumer the market for PCs and software would not have stagnated so brutally? It's more than obvious that the current approach failed.
The massive interest in the first wave of iMacs proves that consumers are hungry for something new, but marketing clockspeed and Apple's insane need to keep prices high killed that movement. Maybe a glimmer of hope from Small Form Factor or Mini-ITX (which I sit and type from at the moment)?
What the hell does this have to do with Rambus? Rambus is part of the brute force/clockspeed eccentric computing industry. They have zero interest in the customer or industry partners, just in money (I know, I'm a capitalist pig at heart too, but there's more to it then that). When their product doesn't sell, they sue their partners, partners gained under false pretense.
So would the industry be better off if we were just getting to 2gHz? If DDR was just taking off in the market place? If Microsoft concentrated on fixing Windows 95 instead of pushing out incremental upgrades every 18-24 months? Would processor upgrades feel really substantial if the architecture were more elegant and devs more concious of performance? If Linux devs stopped trying to emulate the Windows desktop and feature creep and tried to break away from the desktop metaphor? Would it be a better industry (and would the consumer still be interested) if Apple had 30% market share and users really had alternatives?
Yes, the market would be more fragmented and support would be more challenging. Yes, 3gHz is cool, but who needs it? Yes, XP is better than 95, but could we have gotten there in 2 upgrades instead of 5, and caught the security holes along the way. How cool would the Linux desktop be if KDE was built from the ground up not to be like Windows (flame retardent boxers activate!)?
We would certainly have fewer 800lb gorillas, and a more interesting landscape. I think so...
How is this so unbelievable? (Score:2)
Full Story (Score:5, Informative)
The outcome is surprising on its facts, as the documentation shows that Infineon had actual intent to deceive other members of the memory industry.
However, the Federal Circuit now has a twenty year history of ignoring the law and creating its own jurisprudence in favor of strong patent rights. In the process, economic efficiency, fairness, and consumer protection have been lost.
Although the court is limited to patents, it frequently rewrites antitrust law to exclude liability for patent misuse. It frequently revises claim constructions on an ad-hoc, nonsensical basis that is impossible to predict, often ignoring the patent itself, and almost always in favor of the patent holder.
It has made invalidity harder to prove, requiring printed documentation of all elements of a claimed invention, and has limited obviousness to a very narrow set of circumstances where documents actually state that a patented combination is in the prior art. This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but it is unfortunately almnost accurate.
It has expanded the realm of patents to include business methods (harming free enterprise by making the mere right to enter an industry subject to patent rights), genomes (which, while they already exist, are always useful for growing hair--by using this claim they can cover all uses for the genome), and algorithms.
It frequently ignores federal procedural law, and has been reversed a few times by the supreme court on these grounds in recent years.
While many on slashdot frequently cite the "Microsoft Patents 1 and 0" story from the Onion, the Federal Circuit has actually gone that far in real life. In a patent case brought by Excel Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of a patent over a one bit flag used to determine whether two parties on a phone were using the same phone provider.
Yes, Excel has a patent on a one bit flag (ones and zeros) when applied to phone networks!
There is much more to say about this, but that is for another day.
Re:Full Story (Score:3, Informative)
However, the Federal Circuit now has a twenty year history of ignoring the law and creating its own jurisprudence in favor of strong patent rights.
Perhaps, although my experience with this court led to a competitor's patent being invalidated.
This court was established for a pretty good reason - prior to its existance patent appeals were tried in a wide variety of courts with little or no patent experience all over the country, with a mish-mash of quite inconsistant results. Stuff like venue shopping was quite common. The result was chaos in the extreme, and something like 90% of challenged patents were being invalidated by judges with little or no patent law experience. This meant that any company with deep enough pockets could run over the actual inventor almost at will, with little regard to the actual value of the patent.
While this court may have gone too far in the other direction (in particlar in the area of business methods), the concept of a court of this nature, and the need to have more uniform interpretation of patent law was obvious at the time, and in fact this court has probably done more good than harm in the aggregate.
Read the decision online (Score:3, Informative)
I Saw It All in the 4th Curcuit Court... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to say, compared to the legal issues, this is neither here nor there. I just found it interesting.
On the other hand, after listening to deposition after deposition, I heard more than I'll ever want to know about JEDEC, Rambus, and anything related. Even to me, who works with computers but hasn't brushed up on electronics in years, it was clear, after several weeks, Rambus was hanging onto a thin thread and was basically bluffing.
I remember one lawyer going on and on with an expert witness. He kept asking if a flip-flop was switch and if it could be considered memory. The lawyer kept badgering him for a yes or no answer. It got even more fun when the witness finally asked if he was talking about an RS or JK flip-flop. It was clear, at least to me (and I'm sure to the witness) that this lawyer had not even read the most basic info on electronics and memory.
$1 billion in royalties... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US justice system stinks.
And don't even get me started on their foreign policy.
Rader's opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, Rambus' internal smoking gun documents show that they knew what the rules meant, and intentionally tried to flout them.
This decision, which reversed a jury verdict on the basis of lack of evidence really is "beyond the pale."
Here's a link to the ruling itself (Score:3, Informative)
If you do, you'll see that the court felt JEDEC was to blame, in that it didn't actually require, in the legal sense of the word, that its members disclose its patents. Fun fact: Infineon withheld a patent claim from JEDEC, too.
You might also want to read the subsequent news story [extremetech.com] over at ExtremeTech, which summarizes the decision without the gloating by Rambus's Tobak.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
As soon as Rambus's real business began to suffer, they turned around and said "Actually, no, we changed our mind and now you DO have to pay us huge sums of money to use this spec that has now become an industry standard".
So, it's bad for computer users because Rambus is going to levy huge "royalty" fees against other RAM manufacturers, and that cost is gonna get passed right back to us, the customers. Say goodbye to the $12 128MB chip...
Arseholes to 'em, I says.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah yes, the "it only costs us a couple of bucks, why worry" argument. So, when DRM laws get passed, and all the DACs on your sound card have to support DRM and they start costing $7 per unit on the sound card instead of a couple of cents, don't worry? And the same in the CD/DVD drive.. And then the video card makers find out about one of the partners in the AGP spec have a patent on something or other and video cards cost $15 more for "royalties", and then the network cards, and so on and so on, and then all together that brand new PC costs an extra $100 as a result of legislation and royalties, we just should suck it up because it's only a bit here and a bit there?
>I read a while ago about the cost of RDRAM. The cost premium has not so much to do with Rambus royalties as it does low yields during fabrication.
So that's the buyer's fault that they have an inherently less efficient production process? And almost nobody was paying Rambus royalties, because almost nobody besides a couple of Rambus' best friends was/is making RDRAM anyway, since DDR SDRAM is cheaper and faster.
>The story mentioned that in the total cost of a 128 or 256 MB RIMM, some 3-5 dollars was the royalty.
>This was also when memory prices were significantly higher per meg.
The price of a DIMM on a per meg basis will not have any effect on the royalies that go to RAMBUS as a result. If a DIMM cost $25 before and $30 now, when its price would have dipped to $10, it'll still cost $15.
> Maybe $3-5 pisses you off a whole lot, but in exchange for great memory design (RDRAM is damn good for P4) I'd say its a small price to pay.
>I didn't here you complaining that Philips owns the CD standard.
Maybe that's because Philips didn't sit on a council to decide what the next audio system to replace cassette tapes was going to be, secretly patent a whole pile of technology around CDs, then push everyone to adopt CDs, wait a few years for CDs to become firmly entrenched in the marketplace, bring out their own SuperCD(TM) format, watch it tank, and then turn to Sony and all the others who used the "jointly developed" CD standard for all of their devices and go "Hey guys, we've got this patent we never told you about on the CD format to do with X. As a result you all owe us $5 a player. Large bills preferred. Thanks."
No. Instead Philips developed the standard themselves with Sony's help and both licensed it to everyone, up front, with clear and open terms [philips.com]. And, Philips is rather adamant about defending the standard as well. All of these "copy protected" audio discs aren't allowed to use the "Compact Disc" logo, you'll notice. Philips won't let them.
Re:Good to know (Score:3, Insightful)
How to make RDRAM look cheap by comparison (Score:2)
Maybe $3-5 pisses you off a whole lot
Now watch Rambus charge $3-5 per stick of RDRAM but charge $30-$50 per stick of SDRAM or DDR SDRAM.
Re:How pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How pathetic (Score:2)
I mean, talk about entering into a business deal in bad faith.
Re:How pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Infineon, of Germany, and some other technology companies have accused Rambus of tricking computer-chip makers into adopting technologies for which it held or was seeking patents for chips in a wide range of electronic gear.
Antitrust enforcers at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission leveled similar accusations in a lawsuit filed last year.
This is not a simple case of patent infringement that you seem to think it is.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:How pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
No!
The fact of the matter is Rambus lied to the JEDEC. I don't care if they held the patent (a piece of paper that only has power because you agree it has power) for 200 years. They lied. And shame on you mods for seeing insight in that post. Unless you are so stupid that it truly was insightful.
Re:How pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
What if you sat in on a RAM standards body for several years, secretly filed patent applications for some of their experimental ideas, then abruptly broke ranks and started suing the members of the standards body for royalties on their own ideas?
As I understand it, this is basically what Rambus did. IMNSHO, protocol-based RAM is a stupid idea, anyhow..
Re:How pathetic--You seem to have missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
- We are all so caught up in hating RAMBUS, that we fail to realize
- they rightfully own the patent under U.S. law no matter how many other people violated it...
That's not the point. The point is, that when the JEDEC (of which RAMBUS Inc. was and is a member) was working up the SDRAM spec, RAMBUS somehow "forgot" to mention that they already had a patent on something that was going into the spec.In other words, it's not a matter of RAMBUS rightfully owning the patent under U.S. law and it never was. It's a matter of RAMBUS implicitly giving JEDEC (and any user of the free and open JEDEC SDRAM spec) a free license to use that patent when they "forgot" to tell the group about this little patent they had.
So yes, RAMBUS owns the patent. However, they gave up their right to enforce it when they misled the JEDEC into incorporating it into the SDRAM standard.
Re:How pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
At the time that the SDRAM spec was created, great steps were taken to make sure that the spec did not contain patented material, or that the company with the patent did not plan on pursuing royalties. Essentially, Rambus was asked if they had any patents relating to the SDRAM spec. Rambus said, basically, "Don't worry about it."
So JEDEC happily went on to create the SDRAM spec in the confidence that all companies involved had shown good faith.
Later, once SDRAM was everywhere, Rambus tried to make everyone switch to their vastly more expensive Rambus RDRAM. When no one wanted to pay for it, it looked like curtains for Rambus, right? WRONG!
Rambus turned around and said "Oh, by the way, we DO have patents on stuff in the SDRAM spec, and now we're going to collect insane amounts of money because it's now the industry standard."
The issue is not, and has never been, whether or not Rambus's patents are valid. The issue is that they acted in bad faith, violated several signed agreeements, and are putting large portions of the IT industry at risk to preserve their own sorry asses.
So yes.. it's a different case.
Re:How pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary issues (that I'm aware of) are that RAMBUS is accused of essentially hiding the existence of the patent during the JEDEC collaboration and whether what Infineon has done actually constitutes infringement.
The current ruling seems to indicate that there was no fraud involved in patenting during the JEDEC proceedings, but even that doesn't necessarily free RAMBUS from the onus of proving infringement. Whether the patent itself was initiated fraudulently or not, there is still a clause in patent law that they cannot sit on the patent and enforce it at a later date.
In addition, it would also have to be demonstrated that Infineon (among other potentials) were aware that the technology involved was indeed patented at the time the implemented it. There is a substantial legal difference between willful and incidental infringement. And if it is true that RAMBUS stayed mum about the existence of their patent, it's pretty clear that any infringement that may have occured before knowledge of the patents existence would definitely be non-willful.
I'm certainly not up on all aspects of this case, and there are most likely facts and items that I have no knowledge of, but the general perception is that RAMBUS is using ambush tactics as a profit mechanism.
I have no problems with the concept of patents, and I have no problem with those who hold valid patents, but I do have a problem with patents being used for ambush tactics and the like. Likewise, if Infineon really did willfully infringe, I have no problem with them being brought to task for it.
Obviously, there will be more to come in this saga, so it'll be interesting to see where the dust settles.
Re:How pathetic (Score:2)
Wrong analogy.
The right analogy would be you design a very specific way of running at 10GHz. You apply for a patent in secret. You then attempt to extort money from people who adopted your particular design unaware that you had secretly applied for the patent.
It is the secrecy that leads to the extortion racket here.
Hopefully the en-banc will agree,
Re:Wrong .. see the docterine of lasches (Score:5, Informative)
Time to learn about Docterine of Lasches
Well, its illegal to sit on a patent that you own, and purposely delay patent litigation for your own financial gain. If you didn't know about the infringement, then its fine. Not every company can act as a world-wide watchdog for patent infringers. But if you knew somebody was using your patent, and you held off on enforcing it for your own financial gain, there are precendents that make this illegal.
Link and learn
see the docterine of lasches (oops, link is here) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How pathetic (Score:3, Funny)
(RAMBUS's business model)
1) Go to JDEC meeting
2) sign a contract that says you cannot patent technology introduced into the JDEC specification, and you must reveal all patents you hold or are pending that may conflict with the JDEC specification
3) Use JDEC specifications to produce a patent on memory technology. Also, introduce your (patented) ideas at the JDEC meeting and get it in the JDEC standard.
4) ???
5) Pofit!
Re:When does the patent expire then? (Score:2)
Re:Not very well written (Score:2)
Given the extensive coverage given to this case on Slashdot, perhaps a better solution would have been to provide links to some of the many past articles on the subject. The user comments alone would be sufficient to bring anyone up to speed on the situation.
Re:Not very well written (Score:4, Funny)
You're new here, right?
Re:Not very well written (Score:2)
But then again, I agree that chrisd could have either truncated it or gave a little more info
Travis
Re:Not very well written (Score:5, Funny)
You have to wait for the second posting of this news, at least. Just be a little patient.
Re:Not very well written (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not very well written (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not very well written (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not very well written (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very well written (Score:2)
Re:Title was descriptive (Score:2)
Re:Title was descriptive (Score:2)
let's hope its a case of the clap.
Re:Killing you Softly with Rambus (Score:3, Informative)
Explain how. Rambus does not physically produce RAM, nor do they sell RAM. They simply license the technology they came up with to other companies, who are responsible for producing the chips.
Re:Rambus versus Qualcomm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Straight from the article... (Score:2)
Is there a fifteen minute delay on your sig as well, I'm hanging on tender hooks waiting for the rest, is it going to released in installments?
Back slightly on topic how long is the delay going to be for the actual decision, and can Ranmbus afford to wait for the decision to come back?
The judges sent the patent infringement case back to a lower court for reconsideration, saying it had failed to properly define five key technical terms.
Does any one have any details on what the five key technical terms are? Could be interesting to see whether they are simply technicalities.
The company consists of 180 people, including 130 engineers, 45 corporate staff and four lawyers.
Is the other dude the stock holder?
Re:is it just me or... (Score:2, Interesting)
It is also not a 57% increase in the assumption that the cloes value was $116.9.
Yahoo should do better reporting, their own stock quoter lists shows the correct values "+4.25, 57% raise" Linked [yahoo.com]
Re:Better read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Such prose by a
Does anyone grow weary of the uninformed bashing? The story is about these two paragraphs
No actual change of verdict on the rambus case, mainly a proceedural flaw. Where in this story is anything that justifies your comment about Rambus and Bush? Most of us eagerly await your evolution into a real human being.
Re:More Fuzzy math by Reuters... (Score:2)
The company i work for has about 70 people working for it, including me. Since when did 1 = 70? You have many body parts, including an arm, a heart, and an eyeball. Does that mean you don't have a brain? :) It's a bit silly for them to list 179 out of the 180 employees, but not illogical.
(130 + 45 + 4 = 79)
Speaking of fuzzy math... :)