POST A COMMENT

29 Comments

Back to Article

  • Roland00Address - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    He only had himself to blame
    If you'd have been there, if you'd have seen it
    I betcha you would have done the same

    Rambus may have a legimate beef, but pretty much they are now a zombie company who only survive via suing people.
    Reply
  • UpSpin - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    sadly you're right. Rambus should have done what they did, and with the money they got and the improved SDRAM technology, improved their own technology, so it would become the better standard. But somehow they didn't and focused on suing only. And in the end they became a company people laugh about. Reply
  • alandpost - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    "they have other outstanding cases – most notably against Rambus"

    Isn't "they" in this sentence, also Rambus?
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Indeed it is. I apparently have Rambus on the brain.

    The defendant in the suit is supposed to be NVIDIA.
    Reply
  • Beenthere - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    This company deserves to be put out of business for their patent trolling. Reply
  • UpSpin - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    they don't do patent trolling. They just fight for justice. And it seems they have enough reason to do so:
    "The price fixing issue was investigated by the Department of Justice – who found the RAM manufacturers guilty"

    So RAMBUS was suppressed, and now want that the companies bleed for doing this.
    Reply
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Are you KIDDING? This company is worse than a patent troll...you know the whole story, right? They participated in the development of various SDRAM standards FRAUDULENTLY to get some tech in SDRAM, and then turned around and sued people using it. They actually gave up that right when they participated, and participated for no other reason than to be able to sue companies later, and sue they have...and apparently won? They're unethical, at best, and should be shut down by the government. Reply
  • Beenthere - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Must be a Rambust PR rep? Denial doesn't change reality. Reply
  • UpSpin - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    nope, but I admit that I don't know the full history of events regarding Rambus.
    But according to this article, Rambus was suppressed, so it's not about patent trolling.
    And if we forget the price (because according to the article and the court decision it was artificially held high) rambus seemed to be a superior product at the time it was introduced. And their current products don't seem that bad either, except that no ones licenses them. Mainly because Rambus fights against them because of the earlier bad relationship.
    I'm no DRAM expert, so I don't know it, but maybe we could have much more powerful rams by using Rambus, and maybe we would use Rambus (Intel preferred them initially) everywhere now if the RAM manufacturers hadn't suppressed Rambus, which, again, according to the court, they did and you totally ignore.
    I just don't want to agree with your black and white argumentation "Rambus is a patent troll because they sue others" But maybe, and it seems so, they have valid reasons to do so.
    Reply
  • UpSpin - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    EDIT: After reading the article posted on DailyTech, which describes everything in detail, I agree with your statement that Rambus seems to be a patent troll only now. Reply
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    I can't believe this company is allowed to exist. I mean they fraudulently participate in the development of various SDRAM specs...and then they've actually WON cases against RAM manufacturers? How is that possible? This is so clear cut.

    And what purpose do they serve? They used trickery to try to get leverage to sue other companies...aside from that, and somehow actually getting RAM into PCs 10 years ago, and the Playstation 2 and 3, they seem to have no actual purpose whatsoever...
    Reply
  • JonnyDough - Saturday, November 19, 2011 - link

    You must be privy to inside information the rest of us are missing. I'm sorry, which juror # are you? Maybe you aren't familiar with the terms RAM and BUS in relation to computers. Where do you think they got these names?

    The only people laughing in all of this are the lawyers.
    Reply
  • Veroxious - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    That company is the textbook definition of "sore loser". You should have moved on 10 years ago and designed something better by now. IIRC if Rambus have become the defacto memory the price of RAM would have skyrocketed. One thing stays true though it seems ...... their "core" business always have and always will be extortion. I for one am glad that SDRAM won....did you see how cheap DDR3 is now? Reply
  • UpSpin - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    "if Rambus have become the defacto memory the price of RAM would have skyrocketed"
    Article: Rambus has long held that they did not fail for market reasons, but rather because of collusion and widespread price fixing by RAM manufacturers [..] Department of Justice [..] found the RAM manufacturers guilty.

    --> Rambus was so expensive because RAM manufacturers fixed the price of RAMBUS, to push SDRAM. We don't know how cheap RAMBUS would be now, but probably as cheap as DDR3.

    "I for one am glad that SDRAM won"
    You're glad a 'criminal' consortium won? That's odd. I would have liked that the one wins which is better. And SDRAM wasn't better at the time. It was 'illegaly' pushed and RAMBUS was suppressed.

    Is it wrong to charge those criminals for suppressing competition?
    Reply
  • kyuu - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Oh Rambus... now that you've got that silly crap done and over with, kindly focus on being less of a douchebag company so maybe your awesome XDR memory designs can actually gain some sort of traction. Oh, and learn your lesson from RDRAM: don't charge such exorbitant licensing fees that nobody can afford your memory and then a new SDRAM format comes out that steals your designs but is, at least, actually affordable so no one really gives a damn that you were ripped off.

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • ATC9001 - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Did you read the article? There were very legitamte concerns about price fixing which is what caused extremely high prices.

    I almost always side with defendants for pattent trolls, but I think Rambus was likely in the right. Two companies settled, and the other two went to court...this is a continuation of failed bargaining between Rambus and the two companies, it's not like Rambus woke up last year and sued, this has been going on for over 5 years.
    Reply
  • kyuu - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Regardless, it's well known that Rambus was greedy and wanted too much. You did read the part of the article where Rambus *lost* the lawsuit, right? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    We're forgetting a couple things. First, Rambus was part of JEDEC for a while, during the time when DDR was being designed as an open standard. They didn't bother letting everyone know that they were filing for patents on stuff that JEDEC was using I don't think, which led to them suing. Second, just because there was some price fixing doesn't mean that it was the only reason for the high costs of RDRAM. RDRAM at the time it was used typically cost three times what SDRAM was going for, and it required significant changes to the core technology (relative to SDRAM). For the R&D work involved with making a new memory type, I'd think the higher prices were justified; the question is how high should they have been, and that's not really something a court is good at deciding.

    Basically, Rambus is sore that their more expensive technology didn't become the new standard, where they could have made even more money on licensing. The memory companies on the other hand haven't necessarily been doing all that well (as someone else noted, have you seen the prices on DDR3 lately?), so why should they push for a more expensive technology where they potentially earn even less money? Their solution was to charge more (and price fix) so that they could get a bigger piece of the pie; the consumers eventually won out and RDRAM died, and the RAM companies were also found guilty of price fixing. Except, they were price fixing on SDRAM as well as RDRAM, so Rambus saying their tech lost because of price fixing is a bit absurd. It lost because even without price fixing, it wasn't the best way of doing things.
    Reply
  • cbf - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    The Federal Court of Appeals found that Rambus did not defraud JEDEC. The fact is that essentially every memory manufacturer on the JEDEC committee had already signed a non-disclosure agreement with Rambus and knew what Rambus was doing. Also note that Rambus asked to present to JEDEC and was turned down.

    My take right now is that the Hynix & Micron lawyers succeeded in convincing the jury that Rambus' technology would have failed anyway. Samsung and Infineon did settle with Rambus on the same issues.
    Reply
  • CodeToad - Sunday, November 27, 2011 - link

    Federal Courts of Appeals are usually not finders of fact. Probably worth going back to where that case started. I have often thought that on the face of it, Rambus probably formed a business strategy of leaving in a huff and suing their former colleagues. The Federal Court System was not as adept at IP litigation as they are today. Once on that slope, it was just too easy to use their law firms as a revenue stream. When that happens, if you're not developing new IP at a rapid pace, you become an IP TROLL, and not long after that a ZOMBIE (devoid of any market purpose). I'll bet you would find an opposing slope between revenue spent on winning litigation (or threat thereof resulting in big "settlements,") and declining "real" engineering. How much truly effective (here I mean technically sound and marketable) IP have they posted in the last five years? When their senior executives leave, do they land senior jobs at mainstream tech firms?

    Someone made the frightening connection between a FINDING by the US Dept of Justice and GUILT. The Dept of Justice brings as many very questionable cases as anyone. Asian companies, especially, have become used to just paying 'em off rather than defend. Because it has "justice" in it's name does not mean it has anything to do with Justice (just as Justice has very little to do with "Truth"). Oh and we all pay for this... dangerous zombie called Rambus.
    Reply
  • Beenthere - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Definitely patent trools too. Reality doesn't change due to denial. Reply
  • zzss - Friday, November 18, 2011 - link

    We were working on both SDRAM and RDRAM motherboard/system at that time and below are the facts.
    RDRAM technology works on the principle of narrow bus with high speed frequency to provide the bandwidth, hence compare to SDRAM (or DDR):

    1. Memory module design was more stringent due to high speed signal. Higher power vreg was required due to high speed RAM chips. Higher power dissipation led to the requirement of heat sink on the RAM chips and with more expensive RAM chips, the memory module cost was higher.
    2. The Chipset memory controller design was more tough due to the high speed bus and the need for a license fee.
    3. Motherboard design was a nightmare. The requirement was so tight that there were no room for error. The team spend a lot of hours tuning the high speed trace and yet the result was not as stable as SDRAM board. On top of that, it needed at least 6 layers PCB. So, higher development and material cost for the motherboard.
    4. All the RDRAM slots need to be filled up with active DIMM or dummy bypass DIMM.
    5. It was the "Pentium 4" of the memory world. Look good on paper but not practical in real world.

    All in all, we were looking at a more expensive solution for system manufacturer and consumer.
    I am glad the industries move to the right direction.
    Reply
  • thorr2 - Saturday, November 19, 2011 - link

    Yikes, you just brought me back to the days when I was using Computer Shopper magazine to buy a 386 computer. There were some companies that had nice computers that would match any competitor's price. However, when I called them and said "Look at Computer Shopper page 147, I want that price" they would say "We have a 6 layer motherboard. They must have a 6 layer motherboard or we won't match the price." What a bunch of crap that was. Reply
  • bennyg - Friday, November 18, 2011 - link

    *Samsung slaps forehead*

    D'oh!
    Reply
  • RaistlinZ - Saturday, November 19, 2011 - link

    Oh lord, this company needs to DIAF. Their technology was terrible, slow, and expensive. I can't wait until they have no one left to sue and go bankrupt. Reply
  • JonnyDough - Saturday, November 19, 2011 - link

    "Rambus can of course file an appeal, as they have done in the past when they’ve lost cases, but the consensus is that Rambus is extremely unlikely to win such an appeal"

    Consensus of WHOM? This article seems to lack credibility without stating "who" is doing the deliberation. The court clerks who handle the paper work for this case? The people around your office? Some guy on the net? WHO?!!!
    Reply
  • vitality - Sunday, November 20, 2011 - link

    Here is some Rambus humor:

    http://www.icanbarelydraw.com/comic/585
    Reply
  • vitality - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    More Rambus humor:

    http://www.icanbarelydraw.com/comic/1914
    Reply
  • MRFS - Thursday, September 26, 2013 - link

    Sorry to jump in so late: one key FACT which is being entirely overlooked by most if not all observers of the Rambus saga is the abject criminality of all California attorneys: extensive research has proven that not one of the 200,000+ past or present "members" of The State Bar of California has ever had a valid license to practice law in that State. See Sec. 6067 of the State Bar Act, for starters. Moreover, all U.S. Attorneys stationed anywhere in California are obligated by the McDade Act to have executed the same certificate of oath. Conclusion: every attorney that appeared formally for any of those Proper Parties committed multiple acts of FELONY mail fraud (see PROOFS OF SERVICE) and multiple acts of FELONY wire fraud (e.g. every time they transmitted email or picked up the telephone). There were also comments above about "DOJ's Opinion": well, those Federal employees are now turning up in droves with fatally defective credentials, as proven by the obvious absence of OMB control numbers and other fatal defectives on their Office of Personnel Management SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS required by 5 U.S.C. 2906 and 3331. Hey, folks, I didn't make these laws; Congress did! WAKE UP, California, because the global surveillance "state" is now in your face, and the ATTORNeys are still laughing all the way to the banks who "bankrolled" that R&D. p.s. Anand knows nothing about any of this, and I doubt that he even cares. Someone should invite him to post a reply here. I can't wait: one of his employees once accused me falsely of posting pornography on the Internet, but our homepage had been hacked with JAVA malware after a confidential password was stolen from my INBOX. Gloves are now OFF here: I LUV a good fight. Now you know why I moved to Seattle. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now